Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: shell compiler?
Message-ID: <338@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 28-Apr-86 00:35:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.338
Posted: Mon Apr 28 00:35:30 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 2-May-86 22:43:10 EDT
References: <96@cstvax.UUCP> <796@brahma.cs.hw.AC.UK> <157@brl-smoke.ARPA> <771@astrovax.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 16

In article <771@astrovax.UUCP> wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) writes:
>In article <157@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.ARPA writes:
>>We have both an Adventure shell and a C shell implemented as Bourne
>>(SVR2) shell scripts, with acceptable performance.
>
>At least for the 4.2 BSD Bourne shell I don't agree that performance is
>acceptable for the Adventure shell.  I have never gotten very far in the
>adventure shell, before long I get tired of waiting for a response and quit.
>There are times it takes many minutes to respond to a command.

As is well known (I thought), the Bourne shell that is shipped with
4.2BSD (a) is rather buggy; (b) is rather slow.  That's why I
indicated the version of the Bourne shell in my posting.

By the way, I recently converted the Adventure shell to use shell
functions, which reduces its size somewhat.