From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com ([163.179.1.9]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2748>; Fri, 9 Apr 1993 20:15:56 -0400
Received: from netapp.UUCP by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA20303; Thu, 8 Apr 93 13:14:22 PDT
Received: from ghoti.netapp by netapp.netapp.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA16814; Thu, 8 Apr 93 13:14:44 PDT
Date:	Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:14:44 -0400
From:	byron@netapp.com (Byron Rakitzis)
Message-Id: <9304082014.AA16814@netapp.netapp.com>
To:	culliton@srg.srg.af.mil, haahr@mv.us.adobe.com
Subject: Re:  Speed of rc
Cc:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu

I seem to remember the "benchmark" posted on c.u.s as being quite
artificial.

That said, I'll tell you what I know about rc's speed: I don't think
you will make rc ever go faster by examining prof output. The fat
just isn't there. The slowest routine is probably yacc, but it's not
even close to the time you spend in Unix system calls.

The problem can be viewed in one of two ways: either (1) rc is
not perl, or (2) Unix is too slow. Take your pick. rc has to go
do fork/exec for a lot of tasks which a featureful shell or
perl might cram in as a builtin.

I agree that the speed at which scripts run is a valid concern,
and all I can say is that I don't have a good answer at this
time. I can't bring myself to buy into the perl philosophy.