[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hackdaworld] hdw scripts
sure, but compiling the packages source is what takes a long time.
compile time of the perl scripts or more slower bash scripts can
deefinelty be neglected! imho speedup is no argument here!
sure. but syntax mistakes are checked at compile time, and when it is
compiled, it will run really fast because since that moment is is machine
neglecting speedup the remaining argument would be regular expressions,
pattern matching stuff and more flexible programming. we have the first
two things using sed ,awk, grep and stuff. for the last one ... i think
bash is flexible too, we just have to start from scratch to do it more
parsing config files.. for examle. this is the Puzzle script will help a
lot, there is a subroutine for creating build-order-stageX files, this
will improve speed in those cases.. although in my perl implementation
those schemes won't be used.. since i am trying packages config files like
perl modules, also compiled and loaded to bytecode, and kept in variables
and functions.. u will see..
again, calling this external programs like sed, grep etc may be slow,
but hey, this can be neglected concerning build time of the packages.
the only program for which speedup would be great ist the generation of
the build order files. and even here, what are some minuites compared to
>3 days of build time?
slower only when compiling.. after that!, it will run as faster as another
binary program. compilation time is not really as slow actually. for me it
is faster, afaikan see.
please, no more talk about speedup! :)
the modularization may be a point advertising perl. but i am not quite
sure if its good to skip bash. hdw is full of workarounds. before
porting hdw to perl, i want to have all the functions cleaned up and
ready in bah code. actually i want a 1.0 version in bash, as i think we
owe it to bash to do so! :)
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailinglist, send mail to
email@example.com with a subject of: