Spell checking too slow on Emacs.app
Leo
I wonder if anyone else has complaint regarding ispell.el on OSX. It is
an order of magnitude slower than on GNU/Linux. For example, if you run
ispell-buffer you will see it takes seconds to move from current word to
the next misspelled word while in GNU/Linux it is also instant.
If you have (add-hook 'text-mode-hook 'turn-on-flyspell), then
report-emacs-bug will take about 10 seconds to enter the mail buffer.
My feeling is the communication between emacs on OSX(and possibly
windows) and external tools is extremely slow.
Is there anyone seeing these problems? Any workaround?
Best,
Leo
Peter Dyballa
Am 22.09.2009 um 14:58 schrieb Leo:
> Is there anyone seeing these problems?
Not me.
> Any workaround?
Use a native version of ispell! One that does not need Rosetta...
This could be one cause. Another could be flyspell. How fast is
ispell without flyspell?
--
Greetings
Pete
A lot of us are working harder than we want, at things we don't like
to do. Why? ...In order to afford the sort of existence we don't care
to live.
– Bradford Angier
Matt Lundin
> I wonder if anyone else has complaint regarding ispell.el on OSX. It is
> an order of magnitude slower than on GNU/Linux. For example, if you run
> ispell-buffer you will see it takes seconds to move from current word to
> the next misspelled word while in GNU/Linux it is also instant.
>
> If you have (add-hook 'text-mode-hook 'turn-on-flyspell), then
> report-emacs-bug will take about 10 seconds to enter the mail buffer.
>
> My feeling is the communication between emacs on OSX(and possibly
> windows) and external tools is extremely slow.
>
> Is there anyone seeing these problems? Any workaround?
I can confirm these problems. Unfortunately, I don't have a solution.
For the time being, I turn flyspell off when using Emacs.app on OSX.
Best,
Matt
Leo
> Am 22.09.2009 um 14:58 schrieb Leo:
>
>
>
>> Any workaround?
>
>
> Use a native version of ispell! One that does not need Rosetta...
I am using @(#) International Ispell Version 3.1.20 (but really Aspell
0.60.6). I don't know what Rosetta is. I built aspell in Terminal.app
just like on GNU/Linux.
> This could be one cause. Another could be flyspell. How fast is ispell
> without flyspell?
My first example with ispell-buffer tells me that moving from one
misspelled word to another takes seconds and that is too slow. In
GNU/Linux it is almost instant.
> --
> Greetings
> Pete
Thanks.
Leo
Leo
>> Is there anyone seeing these problems? Any workaround?
>
> I can confirm these problems. Unfortunately, I don't have a solution.
> For the time being, I turn flyspell off when using Emacs.app on OSX.
>
> Best,
> Matt
Thank you for this. I haven't had any spell checking enabled since July
2008 when I moved to a non GNU/Linux platform. At the moment I am
writing a long document (my thesis) and spell checking is critical for
this task. Unfortunately it is just too painful to use.
Best,
Leo
Peter Dyballa
Am 22.09.2009 um 17:46 schrieb Leo:
> I am using @(#) International Ispell Version 3.1.20 (but really Aspell
> 0.60.6).
Maybe real Ispell works.
> I don't know what Rosetta is.
Rosetta is Apple software which allows PPC binaries to run on intel
CPUs.
> I built aspell in Terminal.app just like on GNU/Linux.
So it could be native... (Why aren't you using GNU Emacs to build
software?!) But what are the dictionaries? I found Aspell too
complicated, needing new or changed dictionaries all the while, and
mostly those I don't have at hand.
--
Greetings
Pete
A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code.
Baoqiu Cui
I had the same problem with flyspell on Emacs 23.1 for OS X. You can
try to use speck.el, which performs much better (however still not
perfect to me).
Baoqiu
Kevin Rodgers
> On 2009-09-22 14:26 +0100, Matt Lundin wrote:
>> For the time being, I turn flyspell off when using Emacs.app on OSX.
>>
>> Best,
>> Matt
>
> Thank you for this. I haven't had any spell checking enabled since July
> 2008 when I moved to a non GNU/Linux platform. At the moment I am
> writing a long document (my thesis) and spell checking is critical for
Run a `time ispell ...` command from the shell in a terminal window on
your large file and compare the results between your GNU/Linux and OS X
platforms. If they are comparable, you can then instrument the ispell
functions in Emacs and see where the difference lies.
--
Kevin Rodgers
Denver, Colorado, USA
andrea
Unfortunately I also notice the same problem, on a new macbook pro is as
slow or even worse than the same thing on a little netbook dell 10.
I have compiled with macports, so no rosetta here:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
47-172:org andrea$ file /opt/local/bin/aspell
/opt/local/bin/aspell: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
47-172:org andrea$ file /opt/local/bin/ispell
/opt/local/bin/ispell: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I have a hook to flyspell when writing with gnus but first scan takes
always too long, very strange problem...
Tom Dye
Did this problem find a solution? emacs 22 on OS X has a speedy spell
check. emacs 23 on OS X has a slooow spell check. Aspell takes
minutes between words and ispell (from MacPorts) takes several times
longer than aspell did under emacs 22.
All the best,
Tom
--
Tom Dye
T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc.
Honolulu, Hawai`i
Leo
> Did this problem find a solution? emacs 22 on OS X has a speedy spell
> check. emacs 23 on OS X has a slooow spell check. Aspell takes minutes
> between words and ispell (from MacPorts) takes several times longer
> than aspell did under emacs 22.
>
> All the best,
> Tom
I doubt that.
The problem with ns port is that there is only one major developer for
it - Adrian Robert. And unfortunately it is not as solid as on
GNU/Linux. I usually try to find a workaround while waiting for a fix.
For spellings, I disable flyspell mode and call ispell-buffer maybe once
in a month. This is far from ideal though.
Leo
Peter Dyballa
Am 29.12.2009 um 19:16 schrieb Leo:
> For spellings, I disable flyspell mode
It's possibly useful to have around a second dedicated CPU for
flyspell...
--
Greetings
Pete
Encryption, n.:
A powerful algorithmic encoding technique employed in the creation of
computer manuals.
Tom Dye
Thanks Leo. It helps to know the problem is beyond my control. ispell
is quick and fairly easy to use from the command line in case you want
to check spelling more than once a month. It's a bit of a hassle to
remember to save the buffer before the spell check and then revert the
buffer after the check, but even with those steps its way quicker than
trying to check spelling within emacs.
Topm
Leo
> Thanks Leo. It helps to know the problem is beyond my control.
> ispell is quick and fairly easy to use from the command line in case
> you want to check spelling more than once a month. It's a bit of a
> hassle to remember to save the buffer before the spell check and then
> revert the buffer after the check, but even with those steps its way
> quicker than trying to check spelling within emacs.
global-auto-revert-mode might have a bit in this regard.
Best,
Leo
Leo
> Am 29.12.2009 um 19:16 schrieb Leo:
>
>
> flyspell...
Flyspell/ispell mode does not consume much cpu, it is slow but not cpu intensive.
Leo
Tom Dye
Thanks Leo. I appreciate the reference to global-auto-revert-mode. It
makes the work-around more convenient. Tom
Steve Revilak
>>> ispell is quick and fairly easy to use from the command line in case
>>> you want to check spelling more than once a month. It's a bit of a
>>> hassle to remember to save the buffer before the spell check and then
>>> revert the buffer after the check, but even with those steps its way
>>> quicker than trying to check spelling within emacs.
I've discovered a workaround that might (or might not) be useful.
From a shell prompt,
/Applications/Emacs.app/Contents/MacOS/Emacs -nw FILE
Spell checking (i.e., M-x ispell-buffer) is quite fast if you run
emacs as a non-windowed application.
(Emacs 23.1.1 & 23.1.90.1, on Mac OS X 10.4.11, aspell 0.60.6)
Steve
Leo
Yes, that's for sure because it is only related to ns port.
I have moved to another port although still experimental it seems pretty
good. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/119139.
It provides a feature set that's the closest to Emacs GNU/Linux.
Leo
Tom Dye
Hi Leo,
I tried this too and am finding it to be a good solution. Thanks for
the pointer.