[Lazarus] Console App Development

[Martin]

On 13/08/2011 11:05, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> You have to make sure that you've set the highlighting for delphi or 
> fpc. In either case, the highlighting is trivial. If you're taking ten 
> times longer to open the file, then you're doing it wrong. It's quite 
> funny that you're trying to prove that lazarus is somehow more 
> powerful than vim. It's the opposite way around. But that's not what 
> I'm here to discuss. My point was that a really powerful editor is 
> taking orders of a magnitude less time to open files than lazarus, so 
> there is much scope for improvement. Henry -- 
> _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list 
> Lazarus at lists.lazarus.freepascal.org 
> http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus 

I haven't looked at changing the highlighter. No time to find out how, 
or even how to install....

but I added the max tab.

Now gvim takes 10 seconds
Lazarus 16 secs

That is not "orders of magnitude" ?

Even if you look at the 27 secs when using command line instead of 
project. This can be fixed in Lazarus, by applying 2 lines of code => 
once the proper code block has been found.

As for my comparison of the two.  I am not trying to compare the overall 
power of the two.
Most of the functionality only uses resources, if it is triggered. So 
gvim may have a lot of editor commands lazarus does not have, they do 
not affect loading.

Again, I do not know gvim well enough. and I haven't analysed where the 
time in Lazarus really goes.
It may be that Lazarus is slower due to some design flaw, without any 
benefit provided... But it is equally possible, that some functionality 
in Lazarus, that gvim does not have) uses this time for a very good 
cause. e.g code tools scanning the files, may take some time (if it 
isn't deferred, and assuming gvim doe s not have a codetool equivalent).

-------------
Anyway, back to my first statement.

the time lazarus requires to load a huge amount of files is as I said 
"not bad". I never said excellent or top of the list. "not bad" of 
course means that you will be able to find individual editors that are 
faster. But if you look at a range of editors, you will equally find 
those that a slower. "geanny" took double (or even tripple) the time.

I did tests on windows half a year ago (don't remember the editors) But 
severla editors where slower or similar in speed than Lazarus. That 
would set Lazarus to be "average", and to me "average" is "not bad"

---------
As for "room for improvment":
- I never said there wasn't
- I said, that speed improvement (for loading) would not have to be not 
top priority
I stand by that. It already is average. That means while it does not top 
benchmarks, it serves well enough for normal daily usage.


-------------------
btw:

gvim  10 secs
Lazarus 16 or 27 secs
emacs: 20 secs
geany 57 secs
gedit 82 secs