Mon Dec 10 21:13:02 2001
Mike Touloumtzis, at 11:51 -0800 on 2001-12-10, wrote:
> Seriously, there are lots of microoptimizations you could make to the Unix
> command line. 'ls' would be faster if it were integrated into the shell.
> The question is: are people willing to give up cleanliness for speed? I
> don't think most tree walking operations are performance critical.
An O(n) factor is not a 'microoptimazation'.
> I _do_ think gnupg should be able to encrypt multiple files in one
> invocation, which it doesn't seem to be able to do now. That way, if you
> want to amortize startup time for a tree walk which really is performace
> critical, you can pipe find's output to 'xargs -n <large number> gpg'.
This isn't clean either. Iterators have been designed for a reason: the
entire tree can be very big. And you may very well likely exceed your
system's max argument length.
Frank Tobin http://www.neverending.org/~ftobin/