Re: bi
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Boris D. Beletsky wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Vadim wrote:
>
> Vadim> Two reasons emacs is slow: 1. Lisp (jed is faster than emacs
> Vadim> because it uses S-Lang (however they spell it)).
>
> My beloved Vadik, :) there is nothing objectively "fast" about slang
> and nothing "slow" about lisp. Emacs seems to be alot more
> complicated then jed that's all. (maybe jed is faster just because
> it meant to be "fast emacs clone"?)
Dearest Borik, you should know that various Lisps (scheme, e-lisp,
etc.) are interpreted really really slow, and S-Lang is interpreted
faster. As far as I know, jed can do basically the same things emacs
can. It's still slower than vi, because vi doesn't make 8 system
calls per keystroke (as emacs does). And about jed being faster
because it's supposed to be a faster emacs clone -- let's call emacs a
faster ed clone and see how it works ;)
> Always truly yours,
> borik
I love you too, bro.
Vadik.
--
Vadim Vygonets * vadik@cs.huji.ac.il * vadik@debian.org * Unix admin
If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor, and when was
the last time you needed one? -- Tom Cargil, C++ Journal, Fall 1990.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: bi
- From: "Boris D. Beletsky" <borik@isracom.co.il>
- References:
- Re: bi
- From: "Boris D. Beletsky" <borik@isracom.co.il>