Xref: utzoo comp.unix.shell:2462 comp.benchmarks:698
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!riacs!loki!dwsmith
From: dwsmith@loki.arc.NASA.GOV (David Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.benchmarks
Subject: Shell performance (sh, ksh, & csh).
Keywords: sh ksh csh performance
Message-ID: <1991Jun20.213755.21433@riacs.edu>
Date: 20 Jun 91 21:37:55 GMT
Sender: news@riacs.edu
Reply-To: dwsmith@loki.arc.NASA.GOV (David Smith)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Lines: 24

I had a question regarding the various shells performance.  In "The Korn Shell
Command and Programming Language", by Bolsky and Korn it is stated:

"In spite of its increased size, ksh provides better performance.  Programs
can be written to run faster with ksh than with either Bourne shell or the C
shell, sometimes an order of magnitude faster."

Does anyone have some good examples of this statement?  I know doing arithmetic
now in the ksh is much better because it is builtin, but what about in general?

Responses may be posted or e-mailed to me directly.  I will post a summary of
the responses.

Thank you,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  David W. Smith                		All comments made are my own
  NASA Ames Research Center			and do not in anyway reflect
  M/S 233-3					NASA opinions or policies.
  Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
  (415) 604-6555
			
  Internet: dwsmith@ames.arc.nasa.gov
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~