On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 12:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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? Oh. Duh. I missed the 1,000 attempts. =) -- 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
