From: Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jenda Krynicky wrote:
>
> > Actually no. They are generaly not very fast. The reason is that the
> > shell interpreter needs to create a new process for each and every
> > commend you specify in the script [...]
>
> Is this true even f
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Lawrence Statton N1GAK/XE2 wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Devers) writes:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jenda Krynicky wrote:
> >
> > > Actually no. They are generaly not very fast. The reason is that
> > > the shell interpreter needs to create a new process for each and
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Devers) writes:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jenda Krynicky wrote:
>
> > Actually no. They are generaly not very fast. The reason is that the
> > shell interpreter needs to create a new process for each and every
> > commend you specify in the script [...]
>
> Is this true
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:36:00 -0400 (EDT), Chris Devers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jenda Krynicky wrote:
>
> > Actually no. They are generaly not very fast. The reason is that the
> > shell interpreter needs to create a new process for each and every
> > commend you specify
"Chris Devers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Thomas Bätzler wrote:
Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
[...]
> well written shell scripts don't need Perl and well written Perl
> scripts don't need external shell commands.
I think that's the "ivory tower" point of view. Down
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jenda Krynicky wrote:
> Actually no. They are generaly not very fast. The reason is that the
> shell interpreter needs to create a new process for each and every
> commend you specify in the script [...]
Is this true even for built in shell commands? For example, commands
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Thomas Bätzler wrote:
> Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> [...]
> > well written shell scripts don't need Perl and well written Perl
> > scripts don't need external shell commands.
>
> I think that's the "ivory tower" point of view. Down here in the
> trenches, it
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Shell scripting is native to the shell in which u right them and are
> not portable more imp is difficult to implement even simple logic
> ..but are very fast as they are native to OS.
Actually no. They are generaly not very fast. The reason is that the
shell interpre
Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
[...]
> well
> written shell scripts don't need Perl and well written Perl
> scripts don't need external shell commands.
I think that's the "ivory tower" point of view. Down
here in the trenches, it's more like "a well-written
Perl script uses shell com
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Durai raj wrote:
> Anyone can explain the difference between Perl and Shell scripts?
They're completely separate languages.
On Unix systems, a "shell" is a program that receives input and sends
results down to the kernel to be executed, thus the name "shell" -- it's
an e
per my under standing
Arjun
-Original Message-
From: Durai raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 3:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell
Hello All,
Anyone can explain the difference between Perl and Shell scripts?
Regards,
Durai
Hello All,
Anyone can explain the difference between Perl and Shell scripts?
Regards,
Durai.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
---
12 matches
Mail list logo
