Re: Gap buffer problem?

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 11/12/2024 17:06, Marcus Harnisch wrote:
> On 11/12/2024 14.27, Gerd Möllmann wrote:
> > Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > It was nullprogram.com, at https://nullprogram.com/blog/2017/09/07/. The
> > > title is "Gap Buffers Are Not Optimized for Multiple Cursors", which
> > > seems accurate to me.
> >
> > Thanks! Added to my collection.
>
> You may be interested in this article, too, which refererences the blog 
> post above:
> https://coredumped.dev/2023/08/09/text-showdown-gap-buffers-vs-ropes/

To quote from the bottom of the article:

  The way I see it, gap buffers are better for searching and memory
  usage, but ropes are better at non-local editing patterns. Despite
  their simplicity, gap buffers can hold their own in the modern world.
  Maybe Emacs was on to something.

This is also my takeaway from reading a number of other texts on the 
subject (not benchmarking personally, though, TBF).