[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: replacement tool for "adjustkernel"
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:59:57 -0700, Andy Ruhl <acruhl%gmail.com@localhost>
>On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:42 PM, K.W. <pobox1234%live.com@localhost> wrote:
>> OK, I'll second that. Perl is just awful. If I were Emporer of NetBSD
>> I would banish it from the Kingdom. It is a really poor substitute for
>Ok, so where does python fit into that since that's what "everybody"
>is using now?
From the 'What's New in Python' document:
Major performance enhancements have been added:
* The new I/O library (as defined in PEP 3116) was mostly
written in Python and quickly proved to be a problematic
bottleneck in Python 3.0. In Python 3.1, the I/O library has
been entirely rewritten in C and is 2 to 20 times faster
depending on the task at hand. The pure Python version is
still available for experimentation purposes through the
Pretty much says it all doesn't it? I see absolutely no reason to use
Python over C or C++.
>Forget ksh, I use regular /bin/sh along with sed, awk, tr, cut, etc.
>It's guaranteed to exist on whatever proper (non Windows) machine
You are right. If you absolutely want the most portability from your
shell script you should probably use plain old sh. It is the basis for
the POSIX / SUS. However, ksh has become very widespread in its
distribution now. For the most part it has become the de facto shell.
I'll gladly sacrifice some portability to be able to use the features
of ksh. Ksh is so far beyond what sh is that once you've discovered
ksh you won't go back. When using ksh you don't need "sed, awk, tr,
cut, etc." as you do with sh. Also, ksh is far superior in
performance than bash. I can't believe that people are using or even
distributing bash as a default over ksh. Ksh is way, way better in
performance than bash. I posted some numbers a while back on one of
the NetBSD forums. If I can find the thread I'll post a follow-up with
Main Index |
Thread Index |