So you shell guys have a point, you rely on some standard Gnu utlities, and say it is fast in the broadest sense. But my original point, that alot of the shell 1-liners that thrown out as quick solutions, are not neccesarily faster than a Perl script, just because it is C chained together in a pipe. And I do see the shell guys making this claim in the newsgroups, without showing any proof. Thus my original post.
Personally, I would find it COST efficient to put all my Perl utilities on a USB-keyring-drive, rather than spend the time to learn "arcane" shell syntax. Everytime I look at the way bash shell is done, it blows my mind as being the most confusing syntax that I've ever seen. So I could spend hours trying to confuse myself with shell, where a $25 USB-keyring-drive would let me carry my Perl utilities with me. Efficiency is measured in more than just typing time, there is the economics and mental strain of learning multiple languages that have conflicting syntax styles. Perl, C, PhP, Python, etc. all have 'compatible' syntax, Bash shell is definitely odd.
I find it admirable that some hackers use different languages according to what is easier to do, but how many syntax errors do they make, when they are juggling shells? Personally I think it is better to try and learn 1 language, and become good with it......yes I only ride a bicycle and I only use Perl. ;-)
In reply to Re^4: Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl
by zentara
in thread Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl
by zentara
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |