| |||||||||||||
add sh/bash to pain listadd sh/bash to pain listPosted Feb 22, 2007 0:16 UTC (Thu) by tetromino (subscriber, #33846)In reply to: add sh/bash to pain list by b7j0c Parent article: The Road to KDE 4: CMake, a New Build System for KDE (KDE.News)
> shell based on a modern scripting language
As for interactive use, I generally don't find myself using a lot of advanced shell features. For-loops are about the most advanced shell syntax I use in interactive mode. For anything more complex, I find that it's generally a better idea to write a brief perl script and save it for later use - for one thing, you don't need to retype a twenty-line function when you need it a month later.
(Log in to post comments)
add sh/bash to pain list Posted Feb 22, 2007 3:36 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] > A newly started python process uses over 1.6M of unshared memory. So if you> are like me, having a couple dozen terminal windows open at once, using a > python-based shell would mean quite a bit of memory wasted
but is it wasted? when i hear "wasted" or "bloat", i ascribe it to resources consumed that do not provide a benefit. a python or perl enabled shell does indeed provide real benefits to users. at least in the case of perl (using a shell like zoidberg), you now have the entirety of CPAN available for interactive use, well integrated with shell variables you set. this isn't a waste.
and even if you have twenty shells open, thats under 40MB. i can't speak for you but i have 2gb on my desktop, why not use it?
add sh/bash to pain list Posted Feb 22, 2007 5:26 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] it's only useful if you are going to use those features. if you aren't going to need them it doesn't matter how neat they are, they are still wasting ram.
while I have 2G on my laptop, and 4G on my server at home, I would prefer to use it for more useful things (including caching directory entries) rather then holding stuff that I just won't use.
|
|||||||||||||