Kent,
Performance should only be one aspect to consider.
In my opinion, by far the most important one is program compatibility.
I believe ksh93 has the broadest compatibility -- backward with Bourne
Shell,
POSIX compliance, etc.
Some will argue that other shells have better interactive features,
but that should not be a real consideration for the default shell, whose
primary use is as the system's de facto common programming language.
Interactive users can always change their login shell to their beloved one.
I think you'll find that ksh93's performance to be excellent --
certainly more
than adequate -- given its use of the superb sfio library.
And finally, there is the most compelling factor of all, I believe:
the brilliant David Korn himself is still actively and intimately involved
in its ongoing maintenance and development.
Regards,
Mario DeFazio
On 1/7/2011 2:40 PM, Kent W wrote:
[ Sorry if this got sent twice... ]
Hi All,
The question of replacing the default shell in NetBSD "base" with
something else has comeup. Naturally, being the ksh93 enthusiast
that I am I suggested we use ksh93. I am hoping to find some
shell code that I could use to benchmark the various shells (ksh93,
mksh, zsh, ...). I am hoping to show that, on average, ks93 has
superior performance to these other shells. Can someone
point me in the right direction?
Thanks,
Kent
_______________________________________________
ast-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
_______________________________________________
ast-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
