Re: Emacs Mac port

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

On 12/29/2015 07:57 PM, Christopher W Carpenter wrote:
> Clément Pit--Claudel <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On 12/29/2015 07:09 PM, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
>>> Since adding feature to GNU Emacs that give more advantage to 
>>> non-free platforms might encourage the latter
>>
>> I don't think many people care whether they are using GNU Emacs or a fork 
>> thereof, so I'm not sure it would change much to the current situation 
>> (people on MacOS can use a version of Emacs that has more features than the 
>> ones available on GNU/Linux).
>>
>>> this seems to make a stronger case in favor of adding support for all
>>> (?) of the features in question on GNU/Linux than doing anything
>>> else, like merging Emacs Mac Port.
>>
>> Fully agreed; it seems clear to me that the priority is in getting more of 
>> these features in Emacs for GNU/Linux.
>>
>> I was just pointing out that as due to the current situation, I've had people
>> point out to me that my Emacs experience would be nicer on MacOS than on
>> GNU/Linux (and they are right: the best Emacs experience today is not on
>> GNU/Linux). These people were not running GNU Emacs, but indeed that doesn't
>> matter in terms of freedom (though it does matter in terms of using GNU 
>> Emacs to
>> promote the GNU project).
> 
> 
> FWIW emacs of Mac OS X (any of the versions I tried before just
> installing debian on my macbook) have significantly degraded buffer
> performance compared to Linux. I believe bugs were filed about it but
> most of the core dev team don't have a mac to test on.
> 
> If you do any heavy buffer updating (like using emacs as a terminal
> emulator) you can actually slow down the process creating the output.
> 
> So no, even from a practical sense you would not have a nicer experience
> in MacOS IMHO.

I see. I don't own a Mac, so I can't tell; it's good news that GNU Emacs on 
GNU/Linux still has an edge over the Mac versions :)
I've heard people say a lot of good things about smooth scrolling on Mac; I 
imagine they didn't run into the problem that you pointed out.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature