RE: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-31 Thread Jenda Krynicky
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

Re: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread Chris Devers
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 >

Re: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread Lawrence Statton N1GAK/XE2
[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

Re: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread daggerquill unknown
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

Re: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread Thomas Bätzler
"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

RE: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread Chris Devers
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

RE: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread Chris Devers
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

RE: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread Jenda Krynicky
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

RE: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread Thomas Bätzler
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

Re: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread Chris Devers
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

RE: Newbie: Perl Vs Shell

2004-10-29 Thread arjun.mallik
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. ,where as Perl scripts are inter operable and a bit easy to write and debug] compared to shell scripts. This as p