On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Linda Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> wrote: > > Ole Tange wrote: > >> Can you explain how that idea would differ from sem (Part of GNU >> Parallel)? > > Because gnu parallel is written in perl? And well, writing it in > perl.... that's near easy... did that about ... 8 years ago? in perl... > to encode albums in FLAC or LAME -- about 35-45 seconds/album...on my old > machine. But perl broke the script, multiple times .. (upgrades in perl)...
I have been the maintainer of GNU Parallel for the past 11 years. It has cost years of work to get it to work on all platforms for all versions for all corner cases. It has never broken because of a perl upgrade. So I am quite baffled when you say it is near easy. Maybe you really mean that it is easy to get it to work for some platforms for some versions for some corner cases? I will agree to that, but I would never characterize that as production quality code. > So am rewriting it... > > Doing it in shell... that would be a 'new' challenge... ;-) I fully understand the thrill in doing something again that has already been done - especially if it can be done better (Case in point: GNU Parallel vs. xargs). I also understand the concept of doing something that has already been done - just to see if you can do it yourself (e.g. I wrote a quine just to see if I could). What I do not understand is wanting help to do something that has already been done better. In the GNU Project we have several projects that could benefit from help: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/ so I would find it wasteful to spend time doing something again - especially if the goal is not to solve the problem better. I would encourage you to spend your time doing something that has not been done before, or improve existing code. /Ole -- Did you get your GNU Parallel merchandise? https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/merchandise.html
