On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 08:39:25PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > 2011/10/25 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redh...>: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 08:33:28PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > >> 2011/10/25 Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwa...>: > >> > Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmai...> said: > >> >> I created feature page > >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18MorePortableInterpreters > >> > > >> > I strongly object to this "feature". /bin/sh is a Unix standard back to > >> > IIRC around 7th Edition, and there is NO good reason to break it. The > >> > "#!/usr/bin/env foo" suggested replacement has always been a hack to > >> > work around broken systems, not something suggested for all scripts. > >> > >> What is wrong with > >> #!/usr/bin/env interpreter > >> from technical POV? > > > > This is what's wrong: > > > > $ cat > sh.sh > > #!/bin/sh > > $ cat > env.sh > > #!/usr/bin/env sh > > $ chmod +x sh.sh env.sh > > $ time for i in $(seq 1000); do ./sh.sh; done > > > > real 0m2.737s > > user 0m0.750s > > sys 0m1.519s > > $ time for i in $(seq 1000); do ./env.sh; done > > > > real 0m3.677s > > user 0m1.013s > > sys 0m2.296s > > > > Yeah, it is noticeably slower - about 0,00094s.
34% slower is a more appropriate way to look at it.