Re^2: Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl by jdporter (Paladin) on Dec 30, 2005 at 20:36 UTC
it starts complaining AND skipping filenames with spaces in them ...And that is precisely why `find` has the `-print0` switch and `xargs` has the `-0` (or `--null`) switch. `find . -type f -print0 \| xargs -0 rm` [download] We're building the house of the future together.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl by polettix (Vicar) on Jan 05, 2006 at 16:41 UTC
This leaves the problem of a very big list, in which case the shell (I presume) would refuse to start the xargs side. Flavio perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf Don't fool yourself.	[reply]
Re^5: Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Jan 05, 2006 at 17:03 UTC
You're wrong. `xargs` is smart enough to deal with that. If the argument list would exceed certain limits (may depend on the system and the build to `xargs`, for some versions of `xargs`, limits can be set as parameters), as many copies of the program will be fired up as necessary. Limits exist on the number of arguments, and the total length of the arguments. `Perl --((8:>*`	[reply]
Re^6: Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl by polettix (Vicar) on Jan 05, 2006 at 17:35 UTC
Re^7: Myth busted: Shell isn't always faster than Perl by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Jan 05, 2006 at 22:20 UTC