lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Perl make depend made faster (fwd)
Date
From
Peter <peter@udgaard.isgtec.com> wrote:
+> Herbert Wengatz wrote:
+> >And I personally know NOBODY (!) who doesn't install perl onto his Linux-Box.
+> >If you would ever try perl instead of writing shell- awk- or sed-scripts,
+> >you would very soon realize how mighty perl *really* is.- And how fast, compared
+> >to the above mentioned.
+> I know it would be far fetched to say that you know me, but I have NOT
Yes. That would really be far fetched. - I never heard of you before. - But that's
of no importance.

+> installed perl and I don't expect to. Over anything I favor c-programs and
+> I never make anything else myself (including scripts).
That's up to you.

+> I think Linus' version of the make depend was a LOT better than anything else
Maybe. - I didn't take a look on it, until now.

+> and when you talk about non-compatible c-compilers, you may have forgotten
+> that most people actually uses gcc on their Linux boxes (I'm sorry that I have
+> no actual statistic numbers to back it up, but that is my gut feeling when
+> following various Linux mailing lists).
You are right, as long as you stay on Linux and with the GCC.

But try to port your c-program to the following machines and OS's:

DEC-Ultrix,
Sun-Solaris,
Sun-SunOS,
PC-SCO-Unix - and worst of it all:
PC-SCO-Xenix

I think you can't even imagine in what difficulties you will run!
All of those c-compilers (even the GNU Versions for them!) are
mostly incompatible, so that you'll have really hard times in porting
_anything_. - You never did anything like that, don't you ?
So I think now your "c-programming" won't hold any longer any water. ;)

A Perl5-Script on any of these machines will take NO time to port.
(Except when you fuddle with bits..."[Byteordering, etc.])
Since perl5 is perl5 - on every machine! - You may check this out!

+> I will therefore claim that your statement about the advantages of perl wont
+> hold water. I would go for more C-coded utilities instead of any kind of
+> script, which anyway are quick-and-dirty and should only be used for such
+> purposes, i.e. not serious programming (I'm not giving out flame bait and will
+> NOT respond to any flames, on the list or private).

I don't flame you. - You may program in c as much as you wish!
I'm a big friend of using the apropriate tools for what I have to do.
And since most of what I have to do, or what may make my life easier, are
lots of little, simple "quick&dirty"-tools. I'll use perl for them.

The above discussed tool is one of those medium-sized tools, which may
as well could have been written in perl. - If it would have been in the
first place, nobody would have ever discussed about that matter, since it would
have been so fast, that there would have been no need to rewrite it in any other
language. - Even rewriting it in c wouldn't have been a major leap in performance.

My motto is "use the right tool for your task!".
You won't try programming a video-game in Cobol and a heterogenous distributed
database in Assembler, don't you ?

Regards,

Herbert
_____________________________________________________________________
Herbert Wengatz, 81375 Munich |Disclaim: This Mail is my own opinion,
Office :hwe@uebemc.siemens.de |not that of my company.
Private:hwe@rtfact.muc.de | http://www.muc.de/~hwe/rtfact
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
-- Arthur C. Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001
"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from a good perl-
script" -- Me, here and now.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans