2011/10/25 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 20:39 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote: >> 2011/10/25 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 08:33:28PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote: >> >> 2011/10/25 Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@xxxxxxxxx> said: >> >> >> I created feature page >> >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18MorePortableInterpreters >> >> > >> >> > I strongly object to this "feature". /bin/sh is a Unix standard back to >> >> > IIRC around 7th Edition, and there is NO good reason to break it. The >> >> > "#!/usr/bin/env foo" suggested replacement has always been a hack to >> >> > work around broken systems, not something suggested for all scripts. >> >> >> >> What is wrong with >> >> #!/usr/bin/env interpreter >> >> from technical POV? >> > >> > This is what's wrong: >> > >> > $ cat > sh.sh >> > #!/bin/sh >> > $ cat > env.sh >> > #!/usr/bin/env sh >> > $ chmod +x sh.sh env.sh >> > $ time for i in $(seq 1000); do ./sh.sh; done >> > >> > real 0m2.737s >> > user 0m0.750s >> > sys 0m1.519s >> > $ time for i in $(seq 1000); do ./env.sh; done >> > >> > real 0m3.677s >> > user 0m1.013s >> > sys 0m2.296s >> > >> >> Yeah, it is noticeably slower - about 0,00094s. > > Uh. ~2.7secs vs. ~3.7 secs is nearly one entire second, not one tiny > tiny fraction of a second, isn't it? Look again carefully for i in $(seq 1000); do > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora > http://www.happyassassin.net > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Best regards, Michal http://eventhorizon.pl/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
