Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uwvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!derek
From: derek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn)
Newsgroups: net.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: program to repetively display command on crt
Message-ID: <70@uwvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 05:37:20 EST
Article-I.D.: uwvax.70
Posted: Fri Nov 30 05:37:20 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 04:01:31 EST
References: <336@ubu.UUCP>, <255@rlgvax.UUCP> <4698@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 26

> 
> "Cost" measured how?  If it's fast enough, it's fast enough; it does not
> need to be made faster.  Civilized people use shell scripts anywhere they
> can, with C implementations done when, and *only* when, the performance
> of a shell implementation has proven to be inadequate in real use.
> 
> This applies to large programs too, by the way.
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

Personally, I like C so well that I would rather use C than a shell script.
Especially for large programs, and for several reasons.  First is the speed.
Also, the form of a C program is more easily extendable.  It would be a real
drag if I wanted to extend either my or somebody else's program only to find
that it is a shell script and what I wish to add is something that you cannot
do with a shell script.

But somehow I still consider myself to be civilized, and will never object to
"silly" shell scripts that do things cultured people would do with C :-)

"Life's a bummer, and then you die."

-- 
Derek Zahn @ wisconsin
...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,sfwin,ucbvax,uwm-evax}!uwvax!derek
derek@wisc-rsch.arpa