🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3noddg$378@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
Gabriel N. Schaffer <gns2@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>In a previous article, tchrist@mox.perl.com (Tom Christiansen) says:
>
>>:finally come down on the side of fast string mangling. It would need
>>:rapid startup -- faster than the existing Perl -- but could do without
>
>>Oh my! But perl really is very slow to start up: on my abysmally slow
>>and overloaded sparc classic, it takes 4.58 user seconds and 14.22
>>systems seconds to run an empty perl program -- ONE HUNDRED TIMES.
>>That's a whopping 0.0458 user seconds and 0.1422 system seconds per
>>run.  Obviously this is too much overhead for a small program.
>
>Just running perl 100 times in a row seems rather meaningless, because
>after the first time (and on your machine Tom, probably before that), the
>perl image is already in memory and doesn't need to be loaded off disk (or
>perhaps NFS) each time.  However, it is this one-time startup delay which
>causes perl to seem slow to startup.

Actually the 100 times *is* fairly relevant.

If there's lots of little Perl programs on one's system doing things on a
regular basis, that image will continue to be in memory to service each of 
them.
-- 
Christopher Browne - cbbrown@io.org
Microsoft Office - What you use when you don't have access to good software.