Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: Unscientific mini benchmark ;)

X-seq: zsh-users 12537
From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "zsh users" <zsh-users@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Unscientific mini benchmark ;)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:50:06 +0100
In-reply-to: <2d460de70802110203g101da0b3y5131da5a20550b62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: "zsh users" <zsh-users@xxxxxxxxxx>
Mailing-list: contact zsh-users-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
References: <2d460de70802110203g101da0b3y5131da5a20550b62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 2008-02-11 11:03:22 +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> I just stumbled over this[1] and thought I would share as it involves
> zsh. It is not scientific and no attempt to make sure there are no
> settings that affect the outcome has been made. It's just a fun
> snippet.
> 
> 26, 4, 16, 15 here on an Athlon 64 X2 5200+

With LC_ALL=C, I get 28 (bash), 7 (dash), 19 (zsh), 9 (ksh93) here
on a Pentium D at 3 GHz in x86_64.

bash 3.1dfsg-9
dash 0.5.4-6
zsh 4.3.5-1
ksh93 93s+20080202-1

Note: on Debian, one needs to run ksh93 as ksh is a symbolic link
and may be some other shell, e.g. zsh. Richard, it seems that your
ksh timing is wrong.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unscientific mini benchmark ;)
  - From: Richard Hartmann
- Re: Unscientific mini benchmark ;)
  - From: Vincent Lefevre

References:
- Unscientific mini benchmark ;)
  - From: Richard Hartmann

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author