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
> >> 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
> capital letters run into the mode-line. I need to set line-spacing to
> just to make text look decent.
> 3. If I switch to *scratch* and turn on flyspell, I can out-type Emacs
> easily, the lag is that bad.
> Why are we sticking with the ns port again, when Yamamoto has been so
> 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.