Relative speed of Bourne vs. C Shells - C Shell is faster.

[Henry Spencer]

> I'm surprised at the comments that the Bourne Shell is faster than the
> C Shell.  The 4.2bsd Bourne Shell has to call a program to add two
> numbers together, print a message, or perform an IF statment -- the C
> Shell does all that using built-in code.  Waterloo has some large shell
> scripts that would not be practical if written in Bourne format.

The discussion naturally refers to modern Bourne shells, which the 4.2
one is not.  This is one area where System V has actually made some
useful contributions.  We have *lots* of shell scripts that would not
be practical if run under an old Bourne shell (or, I suspect, under the
C shell).
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry