> If Kate engine is used to highlight text line-by-line as in my code, > it process SQLite 3.3.17 amalgamation (2.1Mb, 41218 SLOCs reported by > sloccount) in about 5 minutes. > I think this speed is acceptable because: > 1. Codestriker can't handle such a big files reliable (it creates > Subversion topic that consists of the same amalgamation more than > about 5 minutes) > 2. I believe that reviewing such files isn't the common practice. > > However if highlighting of our code would be too slow I'll consider to > make alternative highlighting using webc++ external highlighter.
Can you do a comparison between Kate and webc++ on something a little smaller? Say something with roughly 1000 SLOCs. I'd be curious to see what the difference is. If it is huge, perhaps going the webc++ or enscript route might be better. Cheers, David ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Codestriker-user mailing list Codestriker-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/codestriker-user
