hello, > should make it a bit faster, at the expense of *much* more memory > usage, as opposed to just.
i was just reporting. perl6 isn't fast enough in this case to compare with other dynamic langages. > In any case, to get the same result, you could also do > > (0..10_000_00).sum.say > > which would come back instantaneously, regardless of the size of the > range. sure but the point of the stackoverflow question was to write a unix filter. seq 1000000 was just a simple and reproductible example. thanks a lot everyone for helping marc
