Re: the splits

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2024-05-22 19:31, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> The shell is fundamentally an interpreter; stuff written in shell 
> can't possibly be as fast as the code that is interpreting it. In 
> general, native tools are going to be more efficient.
>
> ...
> As I see it, the shell is best utilized as commander and coordinator 
> rather than actually doing the hands-on nitty-gritty work; that's 
> better delegated to more efficient (and usually more specialized) 
> tools. The shell can absolutely do it, but it won't be the best 
> application of the available resources.
Makes sense.  I understand that the more time spent interpreting (vs. 
spent in compiled code), the slower.  OTOH there's Lawrence's 'weakest 
tool' rule.  Just grabbing a subscript in zsh wouldn't be expected to 
take very long.  Dunno, I'd have to be able to look under the hood to 
really see which attitude prevails in any given situation.  Besides, in 
my original post, speed is nearly irrelevant, it's an error msg that I 
just want to look pretty.  Mind ... getting rid of the 'grep', as you 
first showed, really did make a noticeable difference.  What I was 
looking for was the most 'direct' -- really the most legible -- 
solution.  I value clarity above all.  Nice tho to be able to discuss 
elegance and fine tuning, vs. getting something to work at all -- which 
is more normal for me!