Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 122.167.9.254]
on May 06, 2008 09:36 AM
Computers are for us to have fun, remember?
Millions of us use PCs with yesterday's RAM, whether 256MB, 128MB, or even (gasp) 64MB, and want programs to be reasonably efficient for what they do. Efficiency is always needed ... some of us with second machines with 2GB or 4GB find the experience unpleasant when inefficient programs chew up all available memory for no apparent reason than it is there, for example the popular internet browser (not naming any names, it has just been fixed) which works just fine on 128MB, but for some bizarre reason rolls all the way up to 3.6GB on a 4GB machine???
As for the 64MB systems and smaller, because of efficient software, we can do all kinds of nifty stuff on them, like run HAM stations, robotics, home automation and other experiments in annoying people and animal pets, telephone answering machines, and a thousand other things. A bit of efficiency always helps. 4MB versus 6MB is a big difference.
"... learning something like ruby, perl, or python that gives you much more power" ... is true and sometimes the best way, yet often they just pile on layers of complexity, memory usage, etc. Just for a few simple calculations, per example of original writer? Good for ksh to have been first (if memory serves) to make such calculations available in a shell with a measure of sophistication. And good for bash to have stepped up for some friendly competition. There is room for all.
I could go on, but you get the idea. I cheer the original writer who took the chance to bring up some good positive ideas even if the bash example was a bit dated. Why not reread his bit about compound functions, coprocesses -- just those two provide many ways to create useful new functionality in a short time for varied needs. And I cheer those who spoke up for reasonable efficiency, for the needs of embedded systems, and all the rest of us who try to squeeze more fun functionality into ever-tinier spaces.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Attack geeks on the prowl?
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 122.167.9.254] on May 06, 2008 09:36 AMMillions of us use PCs with yesterday's RAM, whether 256MB, 128MB, or even (gasp) 64MB, and want programs to be reasonably efficient for what they do. Efficiency is always needed ... some of us with second machines with 2GB or 4GB find the experience unpleasant when inefficient programs chew up all available memory for no apparent reason than it is there, for example the popular internet browser (not naming any names, it has just been fixed) which works just fine on 128MB, but for some bizarre reason rolls all the way up to 3.6GB on a 4GB machine???
As for the 64MB systems and smaller, because of efficient software, we can do all kinds of nifty stuff on them, like run HAM stations, robotics, home automation and other experiments in annoying people and animal pets, telephone answering machines, and a thousand other things. A bit of efficiency always helps. 4MB versus 6MB is a big difference.
"... learning something like ruby, perl, or python that gives you much more power" ... is true and sometimes the best way, yet often they just pile on layers of complexity, memory usage, etc. Just for a few simple calculations, per example of original writer? Good for ksh to have been first (if memory serves) to make such calculations available in a shell with a measure of sophistication. And good for bash to have stepped up for some friendly competition. There is room for all.
I could go on, but you get the idea. I cheer the original writer who took the chance to bring up some good positive ideas even if the bash example was a bit dated. Why not reread his bit about compound functions, coprocesses -- just those two provide many ways to create useful new functionality in a short time for varied needs. And I cheer those who spoke up for reasonable efficiency, for the needs of embedded systems, and all the rest of us who try to squeeze more fun functionality into ever-tinier spaces.
#