As fast as a racehorse. if the horse were running through molasses. And dead.
Seriously, I know that paid workers need to justify their pay, and volunteers wanna feel they have made a valuable input, but why oh why has anyone given you the authority to foist this crap on us?
Kill the project. It is a waste of time and money. It is SLOW. Look yourselves in the mirror and face up to the truth.~~~~
Can you tell me more about your experience? What kind of computer and web browser are you using? Can you give me a link to the page were you trying to edit?
If you look at my contribs, some of them are marked "(Tag: 2017 source edit)". Using the editor involves waiting for it to load (with progress bar), pressing save, pressing... a couple other buttons/hoops I don't recall/ waiting for it to save (progress bar again). Seriously multiplies wait time... At home I use Google Chrome Version 56.0.2924.87; I'm pretty sure I was at home. Lenovo IdeaPad.
Would you mind opening your sandbox and timing it? I can open https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lingzhi/sandbox2 in the VisualEditor's wikitext mode in less than three seconds on my Mac. How long does it take you? (At the moment, my leading theory is that it's just slower on Windows. I think that almost everyone who complains about speed is running Windows.)
I made one edit to a section in my sandbox. Loading your editor took three seconds, as you mentioned. Saving took twelve. Then I undid my edits, exited wikitext editor, and duplicated the edit my usual way. Getting the source took two seconds; saving took four or five. So 15 or so for the editor, roughly half that for editing source. But I sometimes make lots and lots of edits. Those seconds are not at all annoying when you make only one edit, but they become so when... mmm this morning I made about 25 edits while ce "William T. Stearn" and that's not a particularly heavy editing session load. Last night roughly the same. It all adds up. Working late at night, after 20 edits, the 21st etc. that takes so long becomes more and more grrrrrr.
Huh. Saving's usually been pretty quick, because of some magic the devs did a while ago. (I just checked in my own sandbox; it was faster than opening the page was.) But then I copied the old contents of your sandbox, made an identical edit, and it took about 12 seconds to save (including time to type a very quick edit summary). Removing half the content resulted in it taking about half as long, which makes me think that the speed depends upon the size of the page. Would you mind doing me a favor and comparing that experience against my sandbox? Just edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whatamidoing_(WMF)/sandbox (however you want) and let me know if it saves noticeably faster. My sandbox has a wide variety of formatting (almost "one of everything"), but the overall length is only medium.
Loading 3, saving 4. But bear in mind I need to click "Save" TWICE, so you can add 1 or 2 seconds plus more annoyance for that. ...that's four seconds after the SECOND time I clicked save (and so was the 12 I mentioned earlier).
Thanks. It actually starts transmitting your changes when you first open the "Save" dialog, so I think that 5 or 6 seconds is the more accurate number here (obviously, that will depend on how long you spend typing the edit summary, but one or two seconds seems very reasonable there).
Lingzhi, there have been ongoing objections to the New Editor speed, as well as inaccurate previews, for months. (It takes 30 seconds for me to load en:United States in the new editor, and people are reporting over two minutes load time, and browser time-out errors, on the largest of pages.) The community is about to submit consensus that these issues are blockers against deployment.
There's a Phabriator task for the load time issue, and here's the Phabriator task for the previews issue.
Lingzhi is talking about how long it takes to save a page, not the three seconds that it takes to open it. It takes twice as long (or more) for Lingzhi to save a page than to open it (and is getting similar ratios in the old wikitext editor: two seconds to open, four or five seconds to save). I'd be curious to know whether saving a page takes you twice as long as opening it.
Correction: Emphatically *Not* the same ratios in the old wikitext editor. The old wikitext editor *tops out* at four or five to save; the new one has no upper limit.
I think that the upper bound depends on page size. I edited https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/DynamicGraph3/us-10m-json (which is huge) in both; the 2006 wikitext editor took 16 seconds to save, and VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode took 19 seconds to save.
Given the volume involved on a page like that, the upstream speed of your internet connection probably matters. Asking Google "how fast is my internet" gave me a test; at the moment, I'm averaging about 6.0 Mbps download and 0.90 Mbps upload (slower than usual for me).
