[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ale] Bash vs Perl



Here is my speakerrate page with the description of the bash preso:
https://speakerrate.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=michael+potter



On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Lightner, Jeffrey <JLightner at dsservices.com
> wrote:

> You can avoid a lot of performance drain from doing multiple processes
> based on large files but putting the file into an array in bash then doing
> your subsequent processing against that array.   It eliminates the disk
> reads that would otherwise make things go to a crawl.   Of course you can
> (and usually do) do that in Perl and other languages.
>
> The reason Perl is typically more efficient is it isn?t having to invoke
> subshells for calls to modules/routines whereas bash and other shells do.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed
> Cashin
> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2016 3:35 PM
> *To:* Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ale] Bash vs Perl
>
>
>
> A few times (in the mid 2000s) I prototyped in shell only to switch to
> ruby to avoid the overhead of forking.  It was still a huge performance
> improvement, even with the interpreted language.  It depends a lot on what
> the program is doing.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:55 PM, leam hall <leamhall at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I know a lot of Ruby either, but the logic is the same.
> Calling sub-programs is expensive in terms of minute measurements. Overall,
> if you fork 25 time in one day, what's the actual impact? If you fork 2500
> times a second for several hours straight, then you probably want a
> compiled language.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Chris Fowler <
> cfowler at outpostsentinel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"leam hall" <leamhall at gmail.com>
> *To: *"Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts" <ale at ale.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, October 24, 2016 12:08:48 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [ale] Bash vs Perl
>
> My unsolicited opinion, based off using Ruby, is that if the cost of a
> fork is critical use C or Go. Otherwise, "a difference that makes no
> difference is no difference".
>
>
>
> I don't know Ruby, but I'm sure you can text processing without executing
> awk, cut, sed, tr, and their other friends.   I'm talking about the expense
> when you need to do processing that would require call those programs.
> The annoyances of those friends is the subject of another day. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mind on a Mission <http://leamhall.blogspot.com/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>   Ed Cashin <ecashin at noserose.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>


-- 
Michael Potter
  Tapp Solutions, LLC
   www.tappsolutions.com
+1 770 815 6142  ** Atlanta ** michael at potter.name  **
www.linkedin.com/in/michaelpotter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20161024/406bd89e/attachment.html>