[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2005/07/29]
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Aaron Crane wrote:
> Not really -- 140MB for a package containing an editor with most of its
> source code, plus a large number of add-on packages, some of which are
> large anyway, and all of which also include source. (Or at least, the
> Emacs I've got on my own Mac looks like that.) So, yes, it's hateful
> that installing Emacs needs 140MB, but it's the packager's fault, not
> the application's. For comparison, the minimal Emacs 21 packages on
> Debian Sarge for i386 have a combined installed-size of 6242KB, which
> does sound much more reasonable.
I just thought it was funny that he was complaining about something so
far down the list of sizes. And I guess I just can't help but take jabs
at emacs.
> BTW, on my Sarge laptop, when I compare Vim 6.3 and GNU Emacs 21.4.1, I
> find the following:
>
> Command VSZ RSS Estimated time to start
> gvim -i NONE -u NONE -U NONE 20000 11156 1500ms
> emacs21 -q --no-site-file 13040 8080 800ms
Heh, of course the gnome-settings-applet is 16m resident...
I only use vim, not gvim, but they're the same binary so I expect they
take the same amount of memory or something like. I'm sure if you
combine rxvt + vim, it's the same amount of memory.
I'm no (g)vi(m) defender; I'm just more of an emacs pointer-and-laugher.
> Of course, this is somewhat off-topic, as I can't currently muster up
> much hate at all for either editor. Doubtless that will change soon
> enough...
Whereas my "I love to hate Emacs" post was entirely on-topic. :)
--
Like frozen sentries of the serengeti, the century-old termite mounds
had withstood all tests of time and foe - all tests, that is, except
the one involving drunken aardvarks and a stolen wrecking ball."
-- Gary Larson
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://config.sage.org
There's stuff above here
Generated at 08:00 on 13 Oct 2005 by mariachi 0.52