johnr@metro.oz (John Andrew Rosauer) (03/16/87)
Below is a shell printf NOT written in C.
People should spend a few minutes thinking to see if something can be
done using available utilities rather than immediately writing
thousands of lines of C. It's wasting someone's money.
###########################################################
if [ $# -lt 1 ]
then
echo >&2 "Usage: printf format [ arg ...]"
exit 1
fi
x="\"$1\""
shift
for i
do
x="$x,\"$i\""
done
awk "BEGIN { printf $x; exit }"dm@bfly-vax.bbn.com (03/18/87)
John Andrew Rosauer <johnr%metro.oz@bbn.com>, writes: >Below is a shell printf NOT written in C. >People should spend a few minutes thinking to see if something can be >done using available utilities rather than immediately writing >thousands of lines of C. It's wasting someone's money. > (shell file that uses awk) Having spent that time thinking, one should realize that, like echo, printf should be faster than starting up awk. To do otherwise is wasting someone's time. Look, ``the UNIX philosophy'' does NOT mean bending existing utilities to do poorly what a simple C program can do well. It is perfectly fine to prototype the function one wants using the suite of tools that UNIX comes packaged with. However, once you've done that prototype, if you're going to make extensive use of it, translating a shell-file into C is a perfectly acceptable optimization.
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (No one lives forever.) Meyer) (03/18/87)
In article <5008@brl-adm.ARPA> dm@bfly-vax.bbn.com writes: >Look, ``the UNIX philosophy'' does NOT mean bending existing utilities >to do poorly what a simple C program can do well. It is perfectly >fine to prototype the function one wants using the suite of tools that >UNIX comes packaged with. However, once you've done that prototype, >if you're going to make extensive use of it, translating a shell-file >into C is a perfectly acceptable optimization. Quite correct. This is the path Berkeley took to get the ls they've got now. Other tools have gone that route. It should be noted that things that are really heavily used get moved into the kernel, but not at Berkeley (well, not very often). <mike -- But I'll survive, no you won't catch me, Mike Meyer I'll resist the urge that is tempting me, ucbvax!mwm I'll avert my eyes, keep you off my knee, mwm@berkeley.edu But it feels so good when you talk to me. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
dce@mips.UUCP (David Elliott) (03/19/87)
In article <5008@brl-adm.ARPA> dm@bfly-vax.bbn.com writes: > >John Andrew Rosauer <johnr%metro.oz@bbn.com>, writes: > >>People should spend a few minutes thinking to see if something can be >>done using available utilities rather than immediately writing >>thousands of lines of C. It's wasting someone's money. > >Having spent that time thinking, one should realize that, like echo, >printf should be faster than starting up awk. To do otherwise is >wasting someone's time. With machine speed increasing all of the time, this argument is becoming obsolete. Until we all have 20% of a 5 mips machine, it's still valid. Then again, how much of a speed difference are you talking about? Did you benchmark it? How often do you use printf? On my system, the command time awk 'BEGIN {printf "hello, world\n" ; exit}' gives 0 for all times. >Look, ``the UNIX philosophy'' does NOT mean bending existing utilities >to do poorly what a simple C program can do well. It is perfectly >fine to prototype the function one wants using the suite of tools that >UNIX comes packaged with. However, once you've done that prototype, On the other hand, there is another type of waste involved, and there is an issue of portability. An object file certainly takes up more disk space than a shell script that uses awk, and it costs to have the source and the makefile and the manual page. It also costs maintenance. If I were to add it to my system product, it would cost in other ways, such as software manufacturing costs. As for portability, I'm not talking about whether or not the printf command is portable, but whether or not I can expect it to always be available. There was a case last year in which our local version of the BSD 'install' command used the local printf command (yes, it's been written a number of times), and I was pressured to add it to our system. I did, and the command worked fine. Later, when we installed it on a clean machine, it was found to be broken. -- David Elliott UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!dce, DDD: 408-720-1700
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) (03/19/87)
In article <377@metro.oz> johnr@metro.su.oz (John Andrew Rosauer) writes: >Below is a shell printf NOT written in C. >People should spend a few minutes thinking to see if something can be >done using available utilities rather than immediately writing >thousands of lines of C. It's wasting someone's money. [deleted shell printf not written in C] Right. You might want to use that in a quickie shell script, but I've found that shell scripts can be annoyingly slow, and use a lot of resources. If the C program can do it in 1/3 the time, the time spent developing the C program can quickly be made up for. After all, time is money. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% - Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker - UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd | ARPANET: madd@bucsb.bu.edu CSNET: madd%bucsb@bu-cs | BITNET: cscc71c@bostonu -----------------------------------+-----+------------------------------ "New minds, fresh ideas -- be tolerant." | _@o. <- Mick the Micro Mouse