>>>> "KMH" == Karl M Hegbloom
>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes:
sb> Or maybe no one cares and we can drop XEmacs/no-Mule entirely
KMH> Is Mule really that much slower than nomule, or with coding
KMH> system only? I think a lot of non-mule users would like to
KMH> keep using it without the mule support if it's faster enough
KMH> to matter.
I just moved over from non-mule (21.1.p2) to mule (21.1.p3)
and yes, on my dual P2-350, there is a difference. I notice
about .1--.25 second slower speed for a few intensive elisp
programs (gnus with every concievable option, ESS (a stat
interface I need to xemacs-package up, sigh), bbdb on my 500K
.bbdb file :-).
If I'm not compiling (which happens with ESS, which I'm developing),
it's worse. But, not worse enough to worry about :-). (add another
0.5sec to the response). I'm not seeing much slowdown (any? I can't
tell) with Java/Python programming using Speedbar/CC/JDE/Python modes,
I recently had the pleasure of running on a 486/66. Now that's slow.
But not XEmacs/mule on "modern" hardware :-).
I guess it depends on the comparison...
A.J. Rossini Research Assistant Professor of Biostatistics
Center for AIDS Research UW Biostatistics
206-720-4282 (4209=fax) 206-543-1044 (xxxx=fax)