Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: BEN IS A BAGBITING COCKSUCKER. When are you fucktards going to learn to post big blinking lights around these non-backward-compatible changes you make with every release, instead of leaving them scattered around like a fucking MINEFIELD for me to discover over the course of the next six months every time I upgrade? Do you think your users *enjoy* spending their time trying to figure out how do do (setq just-behave-like-the-n-minus-one-version-did t) all the time? This is *progress*? Jesus fucking christ on a rubber fucking pogo stick. You guessed right, setting it to nil makes Emacs stop acting like it's running on a 9600 baud modem. I am no longer awash in nostalgia for the late eighties. Thank you, Stephen, and fuck you very much, Ben. By the way, (and I say this in the sense of "totally sure that I'm right and totally uninterested in hearing about any conflicting opinions, because I've heard them already, so if you want to discuss it, please just leave me out of it"), owning the selection when copying to the kill ring is completely, utterly, brain-damagingly wrong, because the kill ring is a *ring* and the clipboard (and primary selection) are quite obviously *not rings*, as I explained in depth in 1997: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&as_umsgid=%3C3373165D.511EF610＠... -- Jamie Zawinski jwz(a)jwz.org http://www.jwz.org/ jwz(a)dnalounge.com http://www.dnalounge.com/

On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 19:30, Georg Nikodym wrote: Huh? FWIW, with similar settings (font-lock, lazy-shot), on a P4/1.85GHz, 512MB RAM, XEmacs 21.4.11rc1 gives me: $ time /usr/bin/xemacs /tmp/vmlinux.S -eval '(kill-emacs 0)' real 0m3.377s user 0m2.512s sys 0m0.172s ...and GNU Emacs 21.2.1: $ time /usr/bin/emacs /tmp/vmlinux.S -eval '(kill-emacs 0)' real 0m1.819s user 0m0.805s sys 0m0.076s The memory usage values (SIZE from top) are about 45M for XEmacs and 30M for GNU Emacs with this file loaded. And /tmp/vmlinux.S is about 23M. With XEmacs 21.1.14 the load time is about 2.1 seconds. Yes, there's a noticeable difference, but nowhere near 15 minutes and 140M... -- \/ille Skyttä scop at xemacs.org

On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 21:39, Georg Nikodym wrote: Yep, confirmed, and that's where lazy-shot comes in handy. It doesn't help font-lock-fontify-buffer but one doesn't really care about the whole buffer being fontified as long as the visible area is, right? (Dunno but I guess GNU Emacs does this too) Surely you already know it but this produces acceptable results: xemacs -vanilla M-x customize-variable RET lazy-shot-mode RET [toggle it to t, click set] C-x C-f /tmp/vmlinux.S RET -- \/ille Skyttä scop at xemacs.org

Georg> M-x font-lock-fontify-buffer (wait and watch the bloat) Known, and we have worked on it. But we don't know what causes it (in detail). Can you post your Installation? I'm particularly interested in (a) the version (if < 21.4.10, you're missing the most important patch since the initial release) and (b) Mule and error-checking settings, but give me the whole thing, it's small. Georg> Easily dismissed as a "don't do that". For about 5 years too long now we've been dismissing it and spending time on caching and lazylocking and foolery. I don't know why fontlocking assembler would take so long, but I can tell you something about Java: the typical Java program is class-per-file, ie, you only have one defun per file. This means that comment parsing takes bloody forever, because of the "back up 1000 bytes at a time looking for an open defun outside of a comment" algorithm we use. With processors running at 20X bus speed, I see no excuse any more for not doing a full syntactic parse of the buffer, laying down extents as we go. Yes, every time. The fontlocker should be able to beat the IO to the end of the buffer. (Well, not quite. ;-) When I profiled `indent-according-to-mode' a while back on a line 95% of the way through a 400k Java file[1], it was calling a certain subroutine 40 _million_ times (moving the "shall I actually do any work" test out of the called function into the caller in 21.4.10 cut the time by about 97% in that case---still too slow though). Surely a one-pass full parse can't be slower than that kind of thing! Then once we've got that, we can figure ways of "locking down" most of the preparsed extents. Eg, a change should not invalidate any syntactic structure that ends before or starts after the changed region. Any takers? Georg> Except that GNU Emacs has no trouble with it. Yeah, I don't understand that. Matt Tucker did some benchmarking, found GNU Emacs _marginally_ faster, and switched some stuff (back) to GNU Emacs algorithms. It would be really nice if somebody would take a look at that, too. Footnotes: [1] TraverseSchema.java from the Xerces distribution. It's a single class. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:41:36 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: Thanks, I'll check it out. -g

Georg> Sure. I'm using the stock redhat 8 xemacs-21.4.8-16. Ah. You definitely will lose bad in font-lock then. I think Ville Skyttä has a 21.4.10 RPM built against the stock Red Hat distro. (Sorry, I don't have the URL offhand. Ville?) That will help. Georg> I suppose that the correct answer lies in some new kind of Georg> configuration entity/engine that obviates most of the init Georg> lisp that people carry around. .el-tella? The problem is that lots of those snippets are passed from hand-to-hand to address fairly specialized needs. Georg> Oh yeah, and thanks Stephen (for being a voice of balance Georg> and reason in this community) Uh-oh. When I'm considered a voice of balance and reason .... -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:35:22 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org&gt; wrote: Yup. But even more helpful was losing func-menu. Doh! I'm a dumbass. ..el-tella? What's that? -g

On Tuesday, 17 December 2002, Georg Nikodym wrote: Huh.. You think slandering people who do the actual work is entertaining ? Jamie might have a point but there are certainly nicer ways to put forth one's views. Not that I think Ben would care much. You might also want to read this: http://www.666.com/stories/jamie-z.html Do you seriously think posting messages like this will make XEmacs developers go down on their knees and beg you to use XEmacs ? Sorry your installation is broken. samba % l /tmp/vmlinux.S -rw-r--r-- 1 kitty student 25443631 Dec 17 12:12 /tmp/vmlinux.S Loads instantaneously (less than 2 seconds) for me. Dual 933 Mhz PIII 512 MB RAM. top says a little over 25M. If you don't buy the argument, I just tried it on my laptop (PIII 700 Mhz 256 MB RAM). Same time. You can use whatever editor you like. Don't blame it on XEmacs. -kitty.

kitty> You can use whatever editor you like. Don't blame it on kitty> XEmacs. But both "I switched" and "interferes with productivity" are objective statements, not a subjective "blaming". Both of the bugs in this thread _do_ seriously interfere with productivity for those affected. If it's enough to make long-time users switch, we should take it seriously, whether they comment politely or rant and rave. That doesn't mean they'll always get what they want; I doubt Jamie at his suavest would be able to convince Ben on the issue of owning the clipboard. He may as well break out the flamethrower; it can't hurt his cause. :^) -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.

Jamie Zawinski <jwz(a)jwz.org&gt; writes: <snip> <snip> <snip> I don't know why anyone should respond to this sort of childish wind-bagging. It seem fitter to ignore it. But I was struck with the rather extreme selfishness and disregard for others that it exhibits. Nobody has earned the right to publicly assault others in this fashion no matter how they have been provoked. The fact is non-backward-compatible changes happen all the time. I recently upgraded my CPU/motherboard. Now I have to get my USB ports working, get a new sound card, and pull out the old CD-ROM that no longer works with the new system. Yesterday I upgraded to a new version of Mozilla and lost my profile information. Oops. My new Christmas lights don't plug into the old Christmas lights. It looks like I'm going to have to get a new calendar next year. This year's version is going to be obsolete. I'm not saying that this change to XEmacs was a good thing. In the ideal world people wouldn't have to stumble across changes like this; they would either find them in the release notes or bugs wouldn't happen in the first place. But since people make mistakes and do things without fully understanding the consequences, the world is less than perfect in this aspect. This is why there exist development releases of software. The most idiotic thing about your response is that there are few people in this world more equipped to deal with this problem in a reasonable fashion than yourself, at least from a technical standpoint. From a social standpoint, well, that's another matter entirely. I suppose that some people never out-grow temper tantrums. Jon -- If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married. -- Deuteronomy 24:5 (NIV)

I think in defense of the change, there were also a great many users who found the status quo unintelligable on windows. I believe the change was partly made to satisfy dumber users who would not know how to get the behavior they wanted. I tend to agree that since this class of user is probably only on windows then the defaults should be different for X. andy

There is absolutely no reason to behave like that in a public mailinglist. Especially if you think you have a good point, insulting other people along a good argument does no good to your argument. And no, merely having been like that for as long as people know you is no excuse for a wrong behaviour. Besides, if you want to make someone look stupid in public (besides yourself), try saying something smart instead, that usually does the trick. Easy insults are really a weak form of expression, and I won't even get started on the typical reasons for this sort of behaviour because it's none of my business. -- # Stef Epardaud, # Teachers have potentially more power than military, # Java Defeater # the former can teach us how to not need the latter. # Earth # Lunatech Research, # Solar System # soon we'll quit researching and start finding...

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:04:06 EST, "Robin S. Socha" <robin(a)templeofhate.com&gt; said: Just add it to the list, along with the guy who told the whole NANOG list that Tony Li didn't understand squat about BGP-4, the occasional bozos who post to comp.lang.c saying (basically) "who is this dmr＠alice joker and what does HE know about C anyhow?", and the Microsoft guy who tried to argue with this Korn guy about how ksh works... ;)

S> And I am not talking about anything else than that really, if he has a S> problem with someone, he should be smart enough to discuss it with him S> privelty instead of us ending up discussing it. You may not be aware that Jamie Zawinski and Ben Wing are actually good friends.

Robin Socha wrote: While I sympathize with your attempt to give special dispensation on grounds of all-around hunkiness, it should be noted that the picture is not a recent one and IIRC, Mr Zawinski lost the beard since. Regards. -- http://www.azundris.com/

* Olivier Galibert: | On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 11:12:57PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: | > This stuff has been heavily hacked on. Ben changed it so that things | > always go through the clipboard by default, because that's the way | > it's done on Windows and Windows users lose badly if you don't. | | So _that's_ why I can't use the cut buffer and the X copy/paste | independently like I used to. Windows doesn't do it that way, so | screw the X users. How typical. What next, MDI? It is mentioned in the NEWS file (Help->What's New in XEmacs, which is how I found it before), but it would help alot if it was also mentioned at the top in a seperate BACKWARDS INCOMPATIBLE CHANGES (shouting intentional) section, /and/ similarly in the release notes. -- René

Olivier> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 12:24:01PM +0100, René Kyllingstad wrote: Olivier> No, it shouldn't have happened, period. The change is nonsensical in Olivier> an X environment, so it should have been done in a windows environment Olivier> only. No dumbing down of the default configuration of XEmacs, thank Olivier> you. Having by chance been hit by this yesterday evening, I concur: it's a bug, and we should treat it as such. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

Olivier> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 12:24:01PM +0100, René Olivier> Kyllingstad wrote: This is now done, for the stable release series. Go google for a recent 21.4 release notice or look in CHANGES-release. And it is a BAGBITING PAIN IN THE ASS too. I'm sorry, I'm going to write in what I consider to be good, polite style, and make the best of a rather annoying but important job. Learn to look for the (**) that marks what I perceive to be a backward incompatible, user-visible change. And yes, I put them first in the list. However, in a major release, there is no substitute for reading NEWS all the way through. NEWS is not supposed to contain anything _but_ user-visible incompatible (backward or forward) changes. Olivier> No, it shouldn't have happened, period. The change is Olivier> nonsensical in an X environment, so it should have been Olivier> done in a windows environment only. No dumbing down of Olivier> the default configuration of XEmacs, thank you. ms> Having by chance been hit by this yesterday evening, I concur: ms> it's a bug, and we should treat it as such. So who's going to bell the cat? This kind of thing is an indirect consequence of the "reviewers' self-approval" policy (although this particular change happened before the Review Board existed, if I read the runes right). Michael and Olivier are both reviewers; if they want these things done right, they should exercise their vetoes. Shoulder your share of the blame, laddies. _None_ of us are living up to the name "reviewer". -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.

sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: Hi! http://www.dict.org/ is your friend :-) Bell \Bell\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Belled; p. pr. & vb. n. Belling.] To put a bell upon; as, to bell the cat. norbert.

sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) wrote: [snip] [snip] It's one of Aesop's fables. There seem to be quite a few web sites containing it. Try this one, for example: <URL:http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/67.html>;. -- Jerry James http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~james/