On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 22:54 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > Slightly off-topic:
Yeah. > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:29:47AM -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > > > I guess a code audit will tell. :-) Although I got an impression that > > it was written in PHP. I'm not much of a fan of PHP. Don't really see > > the point for something so simple. Bash, Perl (without the overhead of > > PHP) or even an executable-from-C seems more appropriate for something > > as relatively simple. > > Shell scripts are often very inefficient with respect to execution time. Indeed. > They often use subprocesses and other programs for relatively simple > tasks. Agreed. > While running a simple bash (or better: dash) is faster than > running perl or php, running a modestly complex shell script is often > slower than running the same thing with perl. Right. Execve() and library loading and so forth. Understood completely. All of that is why I did mention executable-from-C though. :-) b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
