[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior |
Date: |
Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:36:18 +0200 |
> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Cc: Mark Oteiza <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:32:24 +0100
>
> Optimization does not tend to make staggering differences.
In my measurements, an optimized binary is 2 to 3 times faster than an
unoptimized one. That's something that is very visible in day-to-day
user experience.
> There is something to be said for Emacs developers trying to work
> with the defaults and not just silently reconfigure them when they
> get in the way of productivity not just because of old habits but
> because of actual ergonomic or performance problems.
I don't reconfigure them, FWIW.
> Developers are less likely to suffer from the "I guess it is supposed to
> be that way" disease, so they in particular should think twice before
> just reconfiguring.
Agreed. But after thinking twice, there's no need to think the third
time.
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Andreas Röhler, 2015/12/01
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Richard Stallman, 2015/12/01
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Artur Malabarba, 2015/12/01
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Mark Oteiza, 2015/12/01
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/12/01
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/12/01
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/01
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Artur Malabarba, 2015/12/01
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/01
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/12/01
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, martin rudalics, 2015/12/02