Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Relative speed of Bourne vs. C Shells - C Shell is faster.
Message-ID: <5338@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 12:13:12 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5338
Posted: Mon Mar 25 12:13:12 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Mar-85 12:13:12 EST
References: <216@sdcc12.UUCP>, <12138@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 14

> I'm surprised at the comments that the Bourne Shell is faster than the
> C Shell.  The 4.2bsd Bourne Shell has to call a program to add two
> numbers together, print a message, or perform an IF statment -- the C
> Shell does all that using built-in code.  Waterloo has some large shell
> scripts that would not be practical if written in Bourne format.

The discussion naturally refers to modern Bourne shells, which the 4.2
one is not.  This is one area where System V has actually made some
useful contributions.  We have *lots* of shell scripts that would not
be practical if run under an old Bourne shell (or, I suspect, under the
C shell).
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry