Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tektools.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!daemon!tektools!jerryp
From: jerryp@tektools.UUCP (Jerry Peek)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Relative speed of Bourne vs. C Shells - C Shell is faster.
Message-ID: <179@tektools.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 11:11:42 EST
Article-I.D.: tektools.179
Posted: Fri Mar 29 11:11:42 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 31-Mar-85 04:05:44 EST
References: <216@sdcc12.UUCP> <12138@watmath.UUCP> <84@tekcrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: jerryp@tektools.UUCP (Jerry Peek)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 39
Summary: 

[...getting onto a tangent...]

In article <84@tekcrl.UUCP> toddb@tekcrl.UUCP (Todd Brunhoff) writes:
> 
> I consider that a rather silly comparison since neither shell was designed
> for numeric processing.  You wouldn't use Fortran or C for evaluating
> predicates like you would find in Prolog, etc, etc.  A better solution for
> your "application" (which uses about .8u and 1.2s) would be
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> awk '
> BEGIN {
> 	x = 1;
> 	while (x < 100)
> 		if (x++ > 10)
> 			print "Hi!" x
> 	exit
> }'

Though this wasn't the point Todd was trying to make, it's a good place to
use the magic-number business to feed the script *directly* to awk, and never
start a shell *at all*.  The following setup shaves the script above
(about 0.4u and 0.4s) down to 0.3u and 0.2s:

	#! /bin/awk -f
	BEGIN {
		x = 1;
		while (x < 100)
			if (x++ > 10)
				print "Hi!" x
		exit
	}


--Jerry Peek, UNIX Training Instructor, Tektronix, Inc.
US Mail:    MS 76-036, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077
uucp:       {allegra,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,ucbvax}!tektronix!tektools!jerryp
CS,ARPAnet: jerryp%tektools@tektronix.csnet
Phone:      503/627-1603