Joerg Schilling wrote: > James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > > Darren J Moffat writes: > > > While it is ksh93 I don't think any of this really matters that much > > > because you have to explicitly ask for ksh93. On the other hand if this > > > same implementation was exporting this same functionality by default > > > when it was used as the implementation of /bin/sh I would feel very > > > differently. This still isn't the case to make ksh93 /usr/bin/ksh which > > > is where I think this type of issue matters most. > > > > True enough, though, because of Indiana, we're already hacking our > > system scripts to comply with ksh93's differing requirements. > > Why? > > Did you thing about the fact that ksh93 is _really_ big and that people who > like to use OpenSolaris in embedded environments probably cannot use ksh93 for > this reason?
Erm... the issue is the other way around - the use of builtin commands enables ksh93 to work much faster and with less memory (since you can avoid awk/sed/tr/etc. completely and even avoid temporary files for small things (e.g. stuff data into arrays, variable trees or plain string variables)) than using Bourne shell and lots of external commands (that's why we're (slowly) working on libbusybox.so.1, too). The startup time of ksh93 is highter than the Bourne shell (primarily because we do the i18n setup correctly and simply have more stuff to init at startup) - but that "price" is quickly paid-off by simply avoiding one single |fork()|+|exec()| sequence - beyond that ksh93 outperforms the Bourne shell, bash, zsh, dash etc. in all benchmarks (remeber David Korn had a slide about perforamce in his talk at the OpenSolaris May 2008 summit). --- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
