Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!bcm!lib!thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
From: jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5
Subject: Re: Shell Scripts v. Command Options (was: Re: small bug in who(1) of SVR3)
Message-ID: <4581@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 91 21:19:05 GMT
References: <18946@rpp386.cactus.org> <1991Jan16.175908.3338@zoo.toronto.edu> <1396:Jan1811:54:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: usenet@lib.tmc.edu
Organization: University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu

In article <1396:Jan1811:54:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <1991Jan16.175908.3338@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> I don't advocate callous disregard for efficiency -- that way lies GNU
>> Emacs and other excesses -- but a sense of perspective is needed.  Hacking
>> C code to avoid writing a one-line shell script is a gross waste of time
>> and money unless that program is truly critical to system performance.

(Henry, that first sentence would normally be .sigfile material. Bravo!)

>That depends on your user community. In general, code that will be
>distributed to thousands of sites should be written efficiently.

For heaven's sake, why? Like Henry, I feel that efficiency is important - and
C news says all that needs saying about Henry's idea of efficient (thanks!) -
but consider the poor slob who's distributed those thousands of copies, and
then has to maintain it. Why should he increase his support burden and
maintenance headaches just to save a tenth of a second on a function that's
executed twice a day? There's a tradeoff there, and the most effort towards
efficiency is best concentrated on those parts of the system where it makes a
significant difference.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu  | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret
Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein