Text Editor Performance Comparison

Re:Text Editor Performance Comparison by r0bfelty on Wednesday March 22, 2017 @03:13PM (#13933805)

One thing missing from the test is what options are being used in vim. I would like to see "vim -u NONE" added, which basically acts like pure vi. Yes, vim cannot really handle a 3GB xml file with syntax highlighting, but if you use "vim -u NONE" it is not a problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Text Editor Performance Comparison by ursus_bonum on Wednesday March 22, 2017 @03:41PM (#13934091)

Me too. vim -u NONE is a life saver.

/me waits for someone to say we shouldn't have 3GB xml files in the first place, like I don't know that already.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Text Editor Performance Comparison by i336_ on Thursday March 23, 2017 @07:07AM (#13938753)

shrugs just edit them with regular expressions from the commandline. http://stackoverflow.com/a/1732454/3229684

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Text Editor Performance Comparison by ploxiln on Wednesday March 22, 2017 @06:06PM (#13935436)

Or a few other cases of large files, e.g. huge c files (like the sqlite3 amalgamation). Vim's xml syntax highlighting in particular is very slow, but other C-like languages are fine.

[ Parent | on HN ]