Re: Install-time byte-compiling: Why bother?

1999-05-23 Thread Greg Stark
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Obviously I've misunderstood the behaviour of Emacs here - I'd assumed > that the internal form was the same regardless of whether one got > there via byte-compiling or not. Apparently this isn't the case! it certainly isn't. I have to question your results too, t

Re: Install-time byte-compiling: Why bother?

1999-05-12 Thread rjk
Torsten Landschoff writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On another machine, this a 300Mhz K6-2, I invoked W3 in Xemacs20 >> (using lisp interaction mode to eliminate the wait for the user to >> enter a URL). In this case it was 10 seconds for .elc files, 15 >> seconds if it had to byte-compile t

Re: Install-time byte-compiling: Why bother?

1999-05-12 Thread Torsten Landschoff
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 02:31:39PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On another machine, this a 300Mhz K6-2, I invoked W3 in Xemacs20 > (using lisp interaction mode to eliminate the wait for the user to > enter a URL). In this case it was 10 seconds for .elc files, 15 > seconds if it had to byte

Re: Install-time byte-compiling: Why bother?

1999-05-11 Thread Martin Mitchell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Chris Waters writes: > > > I *strongly* oppose eliminating it, and I'm not real big on the idea > > of making the default be "off". Installing new packages takes a > > while, I don't mind a few extra moments there. I *do* mind run-time > > delays, even if they're s

Re: Install-time byte-compiling: Why bother?

1999-05-09 Thread rjk
Chris Waters writes: > I *strongly* oppose eliminating it, and I'm not real big on the idea > of making the default be "off". Installing new packages takes a > while, I don't mind a few extra moments there. I *do* mind run-time > delays, even if they're small, There is always a delay; this is u

Re: Install-time byte-compiling: Why bother?

1999-05-09 Thread Chris Waters
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I suggest, therefore, that the install-time byte-compilation of elisp > files be either eliminated completely, or turned into an option, with > the default set to "off". I *strongly* oppose eliminating it, and I'm not real big on the idea of making the default be "of

Install-time byte-compiling: Why bother?

1999-05-09 Thread rjk
Jonathan Walther writes: > On Sat, 8 May 1999, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> 3. A lot of the Emacs packages spend ages byte-compiling various >> files during the install. Given that the results might well never be >> used this seems rather wasteful. Also it's quite time-consuming, even >> on a f