On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 07:52, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mail...@laposte.net> wrote: [..]
> CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU time for "you > all should learn to write POSIX-only shell scripts" would be an awful > deal. I need more time. A year for the starter and I can pay good price .. Where I can make such deal? Do you know where is the nearest ATM where I can buy more time? The Java part of Fedora is slowly imploding right now because a > lot of people pushed their complexity on packagers, and the packagers > could not cope. The Fedora target should be to help packagers achieve > more with less work, not achieve less with more work. > Problem with that kind of proving is that you are using *analogy*. Many people are completely unaware that analogy *newer was, isn't and never will be* any kind of tool of proving something. That what learn us LOGIC as general methodology of dealing with problems. Analogy is the only tool of *improving ideas transport process* from brain A to brain B. Only this and nothing more. If you want to prove something you must use *only* pure facts and counter facts. Most difficult part of the proving process is distinguishing what is the relevant fact and what is not and sometimes what is the fact and what isn't. As long as you 'java argument' has nothing to do with not even POXIS sh per se but with *PERFORMANCE of the /bin/sh* please go somewhere else. One more time: we are not discussing POSIX sh compliance topic. One more time: it is *only coincidence that fastest available now sh interpreter it is not bash and all those fastest are 100% POSIX sh **compliant ONLY!!!* All those fastest sh interpreters sh are not faster because they are better designed in some common of the code parts. No. They are faster because they are *simpler and smaller*. Many people even now are investing serious man/hours resources to make some of those interpreters even smaller and by this *faster*. If you want to improve bash speed you must strip down many parts of its code. After that bash would be nothing more than just ~ksh. If you want to bet on which one sh interpreter will be fastest before executing actual tests just look on the size of the binary. Looking from that angle current x86_64 bash it is 1494360 and mksh it is 342800 bytes. Do you see now that .. small .. "difference"? With using sh is the same as with using C++ (if may I use analogy to only *encircle *some important* aspect* of the discussion and to focus your attention on the exact part of the topic). If you want to have fastest possible C++ code by definition you must forget using C++ exceptions and exactly the same here is with abandoning bashisms when /bin/sh is used. Is that clear now? Question only is: "do you care about performance or not?" Everything else after vocalising the answer would be nothing more than just pure consequence of the *decision* .. because dropping or not bashisms still is matter of the *choice*. However even not making conscious decision about that question would be the decision. kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
