On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Gilles Gravier wrote:
> So your point is? That you could settle with a 16 bit ls? Or an 8 bit ls?

Sure, if it had the same features as whatever ls I'm currently using.
At least for me, ls isn't a particularly performance-critical utility.
I don't care if it takes 60 ms to return the directory listing or if
it takes 50 ms. Or if it takes 70 ms. I might start caring if it takes
1000 ms.

I haven't seen any evidence that 64 bits is slower than 32 bits on amd64,
but even if it is, it's not noticeably slower for anything that I'm doing,
and some things are noticeably faster (e.g., bitslice DES).