[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/11]
> > fgrep is faster than grep is faster than sed is faster than awk is faster > > then perl. > How much faster? And how less flexible? Depending on the system, I've seen 2X-10X at each step. If it's not flexible enough, and you have the CPU to spare, you use a higher level interpreter. If it's not flexible enough, and you don't have the CPU to spare, you switch to a compiled language. (I won't take the time out to enumerate all the reasons Java is hateful) > That time is regained zillionfold in development time. Depends on what you're doing. If you're doing something that's well suited to shell scripts, your Perl will take more time to develop unless you use Perl as a heavy shell. Depends on what you're doing. If you replace 'faster' with 'less flexible' or 'less suited to large projects' there's lots of steps past Perl. Enough that you might as well just skip straight to a real programming language. Depends on what you're doing. A week of development time that saves 1/2 a second can be worth it, if that's taking something you have to do 10 times a second down from 0.55s to 0.05s. And that's only one 10X speedup. > I somehow get the feeling that you do not want to learn any scripting > language beyond you favourite shell. Hardly. One reason I'm down on Perl is that an awful lot of stuff that I find hateful in the shell is stuff that Larry Wall faithfully replicated in Perl. Including stuff that other shell-inspired scripting languages like awk managed to avoid. > > Yes, that used to be my experience with Perl on UNIX. > I believe the 'used to be'. Get in touch with reality: it's not the case > anymore. Boy you're grouchy. If I didn't mean "used to be" I wouldn't say "used to be". > If that is the only good thing about Vista, I'll stick to Win2k for the only > Windoze box I have to work with. Since I've already got Interix installed, me too.There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52