🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1777@wpi.wpi.edu>, jhallen@wpi (Joseph H Allen) writes:
>In article <3865@mipos3.intel.com> woodstock@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) writes:
>>In article <1686@wpi.wpi.edu>, jhallen@wpi (Joseph H Allen) writes:
>>>vi is 4 times less CPU hungry than emacs is.  No way is all of that due to
>>>EMACS being lispified.  

>>4 times?  Where did you get that number?  I'd be interested in seeing
>>your benchmarks.

>Certainly:
>[#calls   secs real     secs cpu                      core size  program]
>[------   -----------  -----------                    ---------  -------]
>   76195  624754.68re    9645.13cp        62avio         0k     gnu-emacs
[deleted numerous lines]
>   30676  154142.85re    1043.17cp        28avio         0k     vi

>CPU time per session comparison (biased towards vi since people use emacs
>several times per session by suspending it):
>emacs: cpu-secs/sessions = .127
>vi:    cpu-secs/sessions = .0340
>emacs is 3.74 times worse.

Your use of the word "worse" is most interesting.  As a single example,
Emacs has a command to reformat paragraphs.  Vi users have to call the
Unix "fmt" command.  Your statistics don't reflect this.  Nor do they
consider the fact that Emacs users can get on-line help during their
editing, something unavailable in vi.

>CPU time per real time (biased towards emacs since emacs gets left idle for
>long periods):
>emacs: CPU/REAL = .0154
>vi:    CPU/REAL = .00677
>emacs is 2.27 times worse.

Once again, your use of the word "worse".  Your statistics could just as
easily prove that Emacs users are more productive than vi users.

>So assuming people do similer things with emacs and vi, emacs is about 3 times
>worse (ok, so my 4 times estimate was a bit exaggerated :-).  Actually, emacs
>may be 4 times as worse on other systems because on ours, the terminal servers
>do some of the simple editing work, but only for emacs. 

I claim that this is a bad assumption.  I also claim that arguing about
editing efficiency by siting amounts of CPU time used by Emacs and vi is
misleading.  If you're editing a file in vi, one you've made significant
changes to, and you need to take a peek at another file to look up a
variable name or some such, the only way to do it without first saving
the file is to C-z out, vi the other file, and then fg back to the
original vi.  If you're using Emacs in the above scenario, you simply
pull up the file in another window, find what you want, and then enter
text in the original file while still looking at the other one.

Vi users tend to "vi filename", perform some editing tasks, and then
exit vi, repeating as often as necessary.  Emacs users tend to invoke
Emacs once when they login, and keep that Emacs fired up until they
logout.  The greater functionality of Emacs encourages users to do more
things with it; merely stating that Emacs gobbles up 3 times the CPU
resource that vi does is missing the point.

--woodstock
-- 
	   "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking
	   and thinking...and suddenly you wake up."   - Hobbes

woodstock@hobbes.intel.com   ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate