Feels sloppy (is sloppy) but I think the idea is to prioritize OS unification for hardware reasons, and UX across product suite — devices can share data, apps, screens, everything.
I'm seeing a lot of comments here about macOS/iOS unification, but I think people are getting worked up about nothing.
What do macOS window styles have to do with iOS? iOS (mostly) doesn't have windows!
What does the MacBook Neo have to do with iOS, other than coincidentally using some of the same components? Maybe Apple decided to make a cheaper Mac because they thought people might want to buy a cheaper Mac.
They are trying to use a common design language across all their devices, sure. But you would hardly expect them to do the opposite! They might try to make a hybrid tablet/laptop or something at some point, sure, but none of their current moves point inevitably in that direction. Except maybe for software notarization, but that has nothing to do with window corners or cheaper laptops.
I wonder if tube harmonics modeled by solid state settings has shaped music. Of course it has; music from that era is instrument-oriented.
The discovery of feedback tones and the resulting incorporation in the musical experience — a three hour warm bank of tubes turned up to the limit with a maxxed out savant unlocking new realms of sound.
Isn't it more of a style decision where if your team rebases, and practices clean code discipline, and excellence is a habit rather than an enforcement — the signals visibly emit in `status`.
Most committers don't really understand remotes, much less rebasing.
The second half of the post essentially describes low/high context social dynamics.
Outside of linguistucs, I've seen it applied as a concept of social group inclusion and mobility. Eg. America is a low context society — if you mess up you can move across town. Other cultures that are high context, your family will be shunned for generations with no hope of success.
You lost me at, "XML is not that bad if you are already doing <x>". Verbosity is insane, attribute vs element freedom induces crowd madness. But I do love the data-visiting parts, why can't they somehow get that into Markdown.
Crabs in a bucket is probably the bandit left triangle, people competing by dragging others down.
Flaizers are the lower left quadrant, what original author refers to as "stupid" — causing harm to themselves and others with no benefit for any parties.
My "main" org file is 21k lines, it's no problem at all. My laptop is from 2017 or something.
I do sometimes work on files that are 300k lines (don't ask), and while it's mostly fine, once in a while I'll try to use some less common operation that's not very optimized and have to abort it (e.g. don't try to magit-blame that file). But stuff like searching, scrolling, editing, syntax highlighting are all fast.
If I have to open files >100M I sometimes open them in `fundamental-mode`, which turns off syntax highlighting.
For truly large files (gigabytes), there is the `vlf` (Very Large File) package, which doesn't load it all into memory at once, but still lets you search, scroll and even M-x occur (sort of like grep, but more integrated and editable).
Note that this is on Emacs 31 (there have been some major perf improvements in the last three or so releases, and more is coming with the new garbage collector)
In earlier days there were issues with very long lines; these have partly been mitigated in later releases; on the one hand by faster internals, but also a new builtin package `so-long` that can notice very long lines, default 10k bytes, where Emacs probably should give up syntax highlighting etc. to remain snappy.
I finally made the switch to vim when I was working on a really large frontend template that consisted of the same massive repeated block where a small portion of each was different based on a condition.
There was a lot of search and replace, and emacs started dogging it really hard on like the 10th condition block.
Not these days. Native Compilation made emacs a faster and there have been a lot of other changes. In fundamental-mode, emacs can handle really large files. When opening files literally, it's even faster. I have this 104k line org-mode file and it's reasonably responsive. Reverting it takes a while, but the UI does not hang while the buffer is being formatted according to the mode.
I use a mid tier laptop CPU (6C12T). Emacs is snappy. Compared to what it's like now, it was glacial in 2019.
In general, no... but also maybe yes. It's usually fine, but you may get extra unlucky in specific situations with specific major modes.
I've always found line length the biggest problem. Emacs has never done a fantastic job of handling long lines. If truncated, you can't see most of the content; if not truncated, the performance gets worse with length, and visual-line-mode (essential for dealing with non-truncated long lines IMO) doesn't make it any better.
Performance with large numbers of mostly shortish lines is ok. I've had no serious problems loading 2+ GByte log files (average line length <200 chars) in literal mode. The general performance suggests that Emacs isn't really tuned for editing enormous files, but I've never found things so bad as to be worth switching text editor over.
No, but that’s not really relevant, my point is more that all buffers should be windows across all applications.
Emacs for me gets slow when syntax highlighting is on and I navigate to a very long line, text-mode does not have highlighting or the slowness. Most emacs slowness is caused by bad plugins, which if you report may be fixed by developers.
reply