Hi Paul, > > But the concepts of the shell are stuck in the 40-years-ago past. > > True, but keeping things simple allows for optimizations like PaSH that > can't reasonably be done to Python. > > https://binpa.sh/
Well, I did try PaSh on gnulib-tool — this issue [1] is a testimony. But what can you expect from a parallelization approach? On, say, a quad-core processor you can expect at most a 4x speedup. Which means, the parallelized gnulib-tool.sh would still be 2 times to 25 times slower than the Python rewrite. Also, has PaSh been applied to configure scripts? I recall that configure script parallelization had been a topic for Ralf Wildenhues (before Google swallowed him). Bruno [1] https://github.com/binpash/pash/issues/573
