From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e60603190643y169561detb46ccbf0e11be30e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 06:43:51 -0800
From: "David Leimbach" <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] ports from GPL
In-Reply-To: <810c885907de9253706fc61fd641101d@collyer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <454862c111d0f6eeb1b584a74ad6506a@quanstro.net>
	<810c885907de9253706fc61fd641101d@collyer.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1916ed04-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 3/17/06, geoff@collyer.net <geoff@collyer.net> wrote:
> > however gnu has devolved.  they seem to value compiling on anything,
> > and efficiency, but they don't seem to value simplicity.
>
> It's a skewed form of concern about efficiency though.  In the case of
> gcc, they worry about run-time of the generated program, but not about
> the time it takes to compile it.  gcc seems to get slower with each
> release.  I don't know if gcc 4 is the slowest C compiler on the
> planet (I suspect that Henry Spencer's never-finished aacc, written in
> awk, might take that title), but it's the slowest one I've used.
>
>
As an aside, I was finding that later versions of GNU Awk were
outrunning GNU Sed (Well I assume it was GNU sed.)  The authors of the
Sed and Awk O'Reilly book saw the same behavior, which was a reversal
of what they saw in the first edition of the book :-).

I wonder who spent so much time speeding up awk and ignoring sed? :)