[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Speeding up Emacs load time

From: Emanuel Berg
Subject: Re: Speeding up Emacs load time
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:02:26 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)

Rustom Mody <> writes:

> I am reminded of Erik Naggum.
> [Run a search and ask how far you want to go that-a-way]

OK, I've read the Wikipedia article.

How about you do the same (it is short) to see if that was what
you wanted to communicate. Because - I really didn't get it (? -
or some, but not quite). Interesting material, though.

Quotes from the article:

> He believed that Lisp was more or less the only valuable
> programming language and that XML was an insane thing to use.

On the contrary, PLs are not that important. In general, all
programming is the same. On a particular platform, for a
particular task - the importance of the PL grows. (But not that
much, in most of the cases.)

> He ignored traditional grammar when he saw functional reasons
> for doing so; he began sentences with small letters to make them
> easier to read and faster to type. He often used pictures and
> metaphors ...

In general, I agree, but not in the particular case of small
letters. I think that *reduces* readability and it is not slower
to type with the occasional case switch, at least not in any
amounts that make it worthwhile. But that kind of thinking
(including the metaphors), I'm *very* familiar with. On the other
hand - is that really that - radical?

> Erik Naggum hated Perl with a passion ...

I don't hate anything, and especially not Perl. I think Perl is
classy. But, compared to C and Lisp, it is very difficult to
*read*, and especially what some other Joe Hacker around the
planet wrote. I read C the best.

> He disliked C++, though not as much as he hated Perl, but he
> generally thought that C++ was too difficult to understand to
> such a degree that only about 5 people on the planet truly
> understood it ...

What?! C++ is straightforward. Not as C, but making C OO wasn't
easy, especially not the first time around (although some people
say OO was in Smalltalk and even Simula 67). I'm not a fan of OO
in general because I'm not a fan of modeling. But, without
bragging, I have a pretty clear view of C++ :)

Emanuel Berg - programmer (hire me! CV below)
computer projects:
internet activity:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]