On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:23 PM, John Wiegley <johnw@newa...> wrote:

> >>>>> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro....> writes:
>
> >> back to nsport. The difference is that noticeable. We have been hoping
> the
> >> nsport get better. It seems 3 years have passed.
>
> > Waiting ain't gonna fix it, indeed.
>
> Stefan, I want to bring up again the possibility of switching the Mac port
> over to Yamamoto's code.  Is there any reason not to?  I just tried the ns
> port again, and within minutes couldn't tolerate it:
>
>  1. The colors are washed out, compared to Mac-Port.
>
>  2. The leading on Courier is all wrong.  Example: The pixels from the top
> of
>     capital letters run into the mode-line.  I need to set line-spacing to
> 3
>     just to make text look decent.
>
>  3. If I switch to *scratch* and turn on flyspell, I can out-type Emacs
> very
>     easily, the lag is that bad.
>
> Why are we sticking with the ns port again, when Yamamoto has been so
> active
> in keeping the Mac-Port patch maintained?
>

This sounds strange to me.  I've been compiling the devel source on my Mac
Mini and thinking that it was as good as it gets.   So I have two questions:

1) Can someone summarize the pros and cons of each approach to give those
of us who care a chance to weigh in, and

2) Are there any prebuilt binaries for the alternative Mac approach that I
can try out?

fwiw, my experience with using MacPorts and other Mac package suppliers has
been less than joyful.  To be brutally honest I found it to be a royal pain
in the butt.  But if the benefit of overcoming the pain yields a
substantial Emacs reward, then I will gladly give it another shot.

-pmr