<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Steve Litt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:slitt@troubleshooters.com" target="_blank">slitt@troubleshooters.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:08:48 -0400<br>
leam hall <<a href="mailto:leamhall@gmail.com">leamhall@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> My unsolicited opinion, based off using Ruby, is that if the cost of<br>
> a fork is critical use C or Go. Otherwise, "a difference that makes<br>
> no difference is no difference".<br>
<br>
Bash **REALLY** slows for fork. Run the test program inside a big loop.<br>
If I remember correctly, it's an order of magnitude slower than the<br>
same loop in Python, all because of spawning test.<br>
<br>
High repetition loops in Bash are much worse than in Python or Perl.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
SteveT<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hey Steve, that was sort of my point. If the fork is run once a day and takes 5 minutes instead of 2, is that really a problem? Granted there are much better technical solutions, but if you only have so much time to code, is the performace gain worth the effort? </div><div> </div></div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div><a href="http://leamhall.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Mind on a Mission</a></div></div>
</div></div>