Re^2: Gods of perl
by revdiablo (Prior) on Nov 04, 2004 at 17:16 UTC
|
then she certainly forgot the -v switch.
I realize your reply was a joke, but the -v switch is not necessary. It only turns on verbose mode. In some cases, using -v is actually detrimental.
For example, when unpacking any modern Linux kernel, there are so many small files that it takes longer to print their name to the screen than it does to unpack them. Turning on -v causes it to take longer than it does otherwise.
| [reply] |
|
|
Actually, even on very fast connections, the time to download dwarfs the time to decompress, untar, or print the names. The best way is tail -f -n+0 linux-n.n.n.tar.bz2|bzcat -vv|tar -xv.
Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).
| [reply] [d/l] |
|
|
This is truth. But most people would be amazed at the actual
time verbose output can cost your program. Printing is very
expensive, I remember when coding a big branch-and-bound project for the cap-mst problem in college, it was responsible
for like 70-80% of the total running time, which was huge. And
I just couldn't believe it. So I think most people (specially
non-programmers) have no idea how expensive it can be, and I can tell you I rarely use -v, unless I need it.
| [reply] |
|
|
Since I run my own proxy at home, I can assume that most downloads live in the cache, so I just do:
curl <URL> | tar -jx
or
wget -O - <URL> | tar -jx
most of the time.
| [reply] [d/l] |
|
|
Indeed. When the first Exabyte tape drives came out (like Hi-8 video tapes for those who don't remember,) it was recommended not to use -v on the particular platform I was using at the time because it caused some weird timing problem on the SCSI bus (probably due to a bug in the OS but that's another story.)
/J\
| [reply] [d/l] |
Re^2: Gods of perl
by throttle (Beadle) on Nov 04, 2004 at 18:06 UTC
|
Well, someone could consider the bible as the README (personally i don't).
BTW, why 'she' (or why not...)? | [reply] |
|
|
BTW, why 'she' (or why not...)?
why 'he'? =)
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Though the Bible is my readme, I find it odd that you didn't think to meantion any of the other "holy" books: I Ching (Book of Change), Quran, Tora, the many writtening of the Zen Roshis (and yes I could keep adding to this list). Though I don't wish to open this topic to a broader discuss (that would be inappropriate for perlmonks), I did wish to meantion that others might think of a different "readme".
"Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - I think that I think, therefore I think that I am." Ambrose Bierce
| [reply] |
|
|
A README file is just an introduction to the system, it's a part of the system, in fact the most trivial part. If you're talking about a README for your life, then your birth certificate (or some similar tangible statement that "YOU ARE HERE ->(X)" is enough for a README isn't it??
The real trick is what happens when you *use* the system, run it thru the paces and realize how it works in ways that no one else even imagined, or suggested, or anticipated. Then do you not begin to see the "words" *behind* the readme, and the programming *behind* the code.
There is no spoon.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Re^2: Gods of perl
by blazar (Canon) on Jul 29, 2005 at 12:26 UTC
|
(I'm replying to you because the OP has not been here in 30 weeks)
>It's because the universe was programmed in C++.
No, no, it was programmed in Forth. See Genesis 1:12:
"And the earth brought Forth ..."
- Robert Israel in sci.math, "Why numbers?"
This is now one of my .sigs! | [reply] [d/l] |