On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 03:04:00PM -0500, Peng Yu wrote: > Hi Chet, > > I disagree that performance overhead in typical use is `significant'. > > This point is more or less identical to the one I discussed Friday in > > regards to creating huge numbers of variables. Who creates 100,000 > > shell functions in a single script? The overhead, such as it is, of > > creating and calling even 10,000 functions is negligible. > > Why do you assume that one only calls each of these functions once? > What if a function is called thousands of time?
The point is, the performance is *perfectly acceptable* if your script only defines 10,000 functions instead of 100,000 functions. You are arguing to make a performance tuning adjustment for a situation that will never arise in real life. > The performance difference is 10x different (0.490s vs 0.040s). To me, > this is a huge performance problem. It would be a "huge performance problem" (maybe) if your script actually declared 100,000 functions. Do you have any scripts that declare 100,000 functions? > The main point that Linda and I are making is that we suggest add the > local function feature. I believe that we've made the case --- it > makes the code cleaner and run faster. What makes you think adding function namespaces (or whatever means of localization) would make things run FASTER instead of slower?
