From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/16249
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Dave Love <d.love@dl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Not a timetable
Date: 24 Aug 1998 23:58:34 +0100
Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu
Message-ID: <rzqu332q95x.fsf@djlvig.dl.ac.uk>
References: <m3u33h6cwu.fsf@sparky.gnus.org> <x7r9ykaea2.fsf@peorth.gweep.net> <oqr9yk3bva.fsf@icule.progiciels-bpi.ca> <x7hfzgv8is.fsf@peorth.gweep.net> <873eaz4yov.fsf@slowfox.do.uunet.de> <x7pve3e2md.fsf@peorth.gweep.net> <rzqd89tcigk.fsf@djlvig.dl.ac.uk> <x7d89rrg0f.fsf@peorth.gweep.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035155147 26603 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:05:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:05:47 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu>
Original-Received: from gwyn.tux.org (gwyn.tux.org [207.96.122.8])
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA28741
	for <steve@altair.xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:59:41 -0700
Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5])
	by gwyn.tux.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA30243
	for <steve@xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 19:00:51 -0400
Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAK28087; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 18:00:38 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:58:57 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [209.195.19.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA28070 for <ding@hpc.uh.edu>; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:58:44 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from djlvig.dl.ac.uk (djlvig.dl.ac.uk [148.79.112.146])
	by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA18368
	for <ding@gnus.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 18:58:38 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: (from fx@localhost)
	by djlvig.dl.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.5) id XAA26803;
	Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:58:35 +0100
X-Face: "_!nmR@11ZNuumt0oqG"Y3Hfy|;FGz)`"ul[G?ah6k-oNyDW?3/Nq3Qab$kUnUQ_d4};kPl
 R=}-Vqfo|S5mThi-k<sb8dDL76.\(='H$ee]<E5E=}pX[X&;]RITcPw-6GDeIlbJlshHd~p1Ip&xZE
 [dYv$`;'AXF-OV$@6dcl/*rvO{8a~`_Qq2FJZx>aBR=>%g5a3-OvnEhdHu{^APIaP:b}0m!$bDC>SX
 zz'r)e?`at?tpD*+~b+pf
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
In-Reply-To: Stainless Steel Rat's message of "Sun, 23 Aug 1998 13:23:13 GMT"
Original-Lines: 37
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.39/Emacs 20.3
Precedence: list
X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:16249
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:16249

>>>>> "Rat" == Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

 Rat> The Emacs 20.1 and 20.1 binaries are ~50% larger than the Emacs 19.34
 Rat> binary (Linux/GNU system, GCC 2.7.2).  

I was thinking of a more relevant footprint like memory.

 Rat> The memory footprint is comesurately larger.

As in 4.8 MB for 19.34 v. 5.9 MB for 20.3 or 5.4 MB for 20.2 MBSK
freshly started under X on Linux as I see?  For a realistic sized
process, the fractional difference between 19 and 20 is considerably
reduced (not obviously important to me).  Gnus is one of the major
contributors to memory footprint in my Emacs, of course.

 Rat> Most of that code increase is MULE.

Probably so FWIW, but unmeasured.

However, arguing about the footprint misses the point of MULE problems
(such as are relevant to Gnus).

 KG> I think removing all features you don't use from all programs you
 KG> use is going to be a lot of work.

 Rat> Only becaue RMS decided to break his own "rules" and
 Rat> incorporated MULE in a fashion that prevents it from being
 Rat> removed.

What "rules", exactly?

 Rat> He could have done it right, witness XEmacs which has MULE as a
 Rat> compile time feature.  He decided not to do it that way.

While I don't like it, I can see reasonable arguments for it being
like that.  Note also that rms has reacted to complaints about the
MULE incarnation in 20.2.  20.3 deserves use.