Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:57:39 02/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2004 at 12:09:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 18, 2004 at 10:11:52, Steven Edwards wrote: > >>On February 18, 2004 at 07:58:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>On February 18, 2004 at 06:34:56, Steven Edwards wrote: >>>>On February 18, 2004 at 05:21:33, Tord Romstad wrote: >>>>>On February 17, 2004 at 19:33:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>>>>((((((((((a b c)(a))))))(((())))))(((()))) >>>>>> >>>>>>Sentences like above are not so easy to understand. C is way easier. >>>>> >>>>>But the line of Lisp "code" above doesn't do anything. It isn't code >>>>>at all in any meaningful sense of the word. I would even claim that >>>>>you would never even see anything like the above line in a Lisp program, >>>>>unless it is written by an incompetent Lisper or it is deliberately >>>>>obfuscated. >>>> >>>>Tord is correct, except no Lisp coder could be _that_ incompetent. >>>> >>>>>>AFAIK only some grey old emacs fans write their stuff in LISP. >>>> >>>>Vincent, you need to get out more and get to know programmers who are not all >>>>members of single narrow domain. >>> >>>You're talking to yourself. >> >>Not quite. Seriously, you sometimes seem to have an eye for detials, but your >>overall credibility is subject to ruin every time you express yet another >>unfounded generalization. >> >>>>>Emacs Lisp is an old, ugly and inefficient Lisp dialect, and doesn't >>>>>really belong in this discussion. >>>> >>>>Emacs Lisp (samples in all the *.el files in the Emacs distribution) is well >>>>suited for its purpose. Emacs works remarkably fast considering its power of >>>>expressibility and extendibility. It also proves false the hoary old >>>>misconception that "Lisp is slow". >>> >>>$ emacs diep.ini & >>> >>>EMACS is dead slow. It takes like 20 seconds to start it the first time. >> >>Launching Emacs on my 400 MHz G4 PPc Macintosh takes less than a second. The >>process is nearly instantaneous on by 1 GHz PPC and my 1.13 GHz P3. Perhaps you >>are using a TRS-80? > >Dual K7 2.127Ghz, it toasts your macintosh everywhere. > >Also at universities emacs never loads quick. Only after you have loaded it 1 >time it is faster next time (i guess caching). Please talk about things you know something about... I just typed "emacs" on my dual xeon and it took (according to the time command) 1.5 seconds to load the _first_ time (I don't use emacs, I use VI). The next time I typed emacs I hit return and it popped up instantly. I then went to one of our sun ultra-sparcs. It took about 3 seconds to pop up the first time, and then no time thereafter. Your 20 seconds nonsense is pure hyperbole with no factual basis, unless you are using an old 8086 with a floppy disk for storage.. > >Note Emacs is in C (the core). > >Oh wait i let it start default with > >escape-x global-font-lock-mode :) > >That for the entire diep C source code :) > >No editor under windows has problems with that, despite that under windows it's >100000x better. No editor under linux has problems either. I just vi'ed the "enormous.pgn" file with no problems. Took49 seconds to open and close it. 945 megabytes of ASCII text. Let me know how your windows editor does when you open that file... I can use vi or emacs to open a source file containing all crafty .c stuff, and it is instant on my box here... I'll be happy to set you up a temporary account here so that you can verify it rather than resorting to more hand-waving. > >>>That's sick long for just editting a simple textfile. >> >>If you knew a sufficient variety of programmers, you would know that Emacs, >>properly installed, launches quickly. >> >>>Emacs is the only editor i use under linux because i know how to modify it's >>>lisp (when i have the time to remember that and do it) and because i remember a >>>lot of its cryptic commands. >>> >>>Yet it is not so fun to edit source code with it. It works a lot slower there >>>and it is in fact dead slow without redefining function keys in LISP. >>> >>>The only reason i work under windows at the moment is because of superior >>>editors under windows. >> >>It was because of the general poor quality of Windows and other MS software that >>I had to use professionally for 25+ years that I do not have a single MS product >>in my home. >> >>>>>>When i define something in LISP there i continuesly make (((()))((())) >>>>>>mistakes. >>>> >>>>Almost all of this goes away after a few days of Lisp programming experience. >>> >>>I guess if you live in hell you will get used to it too. >> >>You shouldn't give up on learning something important if it takes more than a >>few tries. Becoming a decent Lisper takes more than a few sessions. It's >>similar to becoming really good at intercourse: you need more than a week plus >>access to at least one other person who knows what they're doing. >> >>>Additionally i have great colorization of my source code in C because there is >>>many great editors for it. LISP is not supported in any of these editors. >> >>Wrong again. For years editors (like the one from Metrowerks) have had >>customizable syntax coloring that lights up Lisp keywords as well as doing >>balance/selection based on syntax. You need to try more editors. >> >>>Note all these features are needed for beginning programmers. I nowadays write a >>>lot of code which only needs to get compiled only once. Zero errors. >> >>Too bad you don't have an editor that will remove false generalizations from >>your postings. >> >>>Emacs is a very slow development environment where still the lemma applies that >>>programmers on average program 0.5 source code lines an hour with. >> >>See my previous comment.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.