I'd think that would have more to do with painting the screen then actually processing the keystroke. A few ms difference wouldn't be noticeably slower unless you were watching for it specifically.
What other measure of keystroke latency matters for typing than time from keystroke to display? I certainly am not impressed just because my keystrokes got placed in some invisible software buffer really quickly.
I guess my contention is that we all should realize a giant program like word is going to exhibit areas of latency that simpler programs can be more efficient in.
Idk, I don't expect word to pain as quickly as vim because why would it? It's huge.
Word is what I use for editing rich text, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that doing the same in vim or emacs is much more of a chore and less intuitive.
Idk, seems like comparing a wrench to a hammer from my perspective, that's all.
> I guess my contention is that we all should realize a giant program like word is going to exhibit areas of latency that simpler programs can be more efficient in.
But that's just lazy design. The immediate effect of typing a character (i.e., showing up on screen) hasn't changed in decades. Yes Word may do other stuff, but none of that other stuff is in the critical path for typing latency.
Think of a database like Oracle. Oracle does lots of stuff, but its critical latency path (committing simple transactions to the log) is as fast or faster than "simpler" ACID databases.
I don't experience any lag with current word except for very large files. It's slightly less responsive than typing in vim, but most operations feel instant.