vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/10/88)
In article <282@lclark.UUCP> dan@lclark.UUCP (Dan Revel) writes: |Does anyone know what sort of impact jove has on system performance? Compared to VI, they're about equal. Startup time is going to depend mostly on the size of the executables, which on my Vax (Ultrix 2.x, Jove 4.9, VI 3.7) are: text data bss dec hex 115712 5120 125992 246824 3c428 /usr/ucb/vi 100352 23552 75736 199640 30bd8 /usr/local/bin/jove Rather than Jove, you're probably worried about emacs-type editors in general, since their text and/or data frequently gets to 600K or 1MB -- then it starts running and eats up lots and lots more. Emacs editors, in general, are written in Lisp and contain a byte-code interpreter. This makes for an amazingly programmable editor, but it also eats up all available CPU cycles and memory. Jove does not suffer from this problem, as it is written in C and has no e-lisp or m-lisp or any-kind-of-lisp extension language. Let's not, everybody, get into any kind of a discussion of which editor is better. If someone wants to dispute what I've said about resource usage, fine. But if I see another "vi vs. emacs" subject line this week I may be forced to eat my own liver. In article <24356@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: # You might look into microemacs, which is more portable than jove, more # functional, and is still quite small and quick. That should also have # little effect on system performance. I havn't poked into uEmacs for a while, but when last I did I found it to be flinkier on the whole than Jove was. Jove is a nightmare internally, but if you can make it work (lucky me, I have a Vax running BSD :-)) it works quite well. uEmacs was my favorite editor when I worked on MSDOS, but Jove works even there these days. If anyone wants to talk about jove vs. uEmacs, let's go to comp.emacs or to comp.editors, but please, please, please, don't do it in comp.unix.q. # BTW, 15 people on a 11/750 is going to be very, very slow no matter # what editor you're using. If I were going to put 15 people on a machine and have them all edit files simultaneously, I'd choose a 750 before a MicroVAX-II. The II may run rings around a 750 in single-user benchmarks, but once a lot of users get on there, it degrades much more steeply. Whether this is because of the IO bus or standard-configuration disk subsystems or just what, I don't know. -- Paul Vixie Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013