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