Benchmarking XEmacs (was Re: Beware of modules.)
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org:
...
Totally off-topic, but if someone mentions the "30%" figure
once
again, I'll SCREAM! It's a myth. Subjectively, Mule is at least 3
times slower than non-Mule --
Not to me, but I won't push the matter. XEmacs/Mule is slower, but
not three times slower. On any kind of decent Pentium the performance
is acceptable, PIC and all.
and Martin's benchmarks confirmed that "30% slowdown"
is an insulting
euphemism.
What Subject: did he post them under? The last benchmarks I did showed
Mule slowdown ~10-50% depending upon the benchmark.