Subject:
|
Re: awk vs. perl for simple tasks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 May 1999 18:29:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
438 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, jsproat@geocities.com (Sproaticus) writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> > That's good if you're snarfing up relatively small files, but what if you're
> > processing 100 megabytes of STDIN -- say, looking through an httpd log? And
> > live tail -f even? :)
>
> It just occurred to me how useful a live tail util would be. How would you
> implement one in Perl? Would the one at PPT (1) be the one to check out?
> 1. http://language.perl.com/ppt/index.html
Hmm, that implementation of 'tail -f' uses polling on 1-second intervals to
check whether the file size has changed, which, although gross in theory, is
perfectly fine in practice if there aren't a zillion copies of it running.
Dunno how many Unix implementations have file-change events/signals like NT
does, but I'd imagine that many of them do and that the C versions of 'tail'
shipped by the OS vendors would take advantage of this whenever they could.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: awk vs. perl for simple tasks
|
| (...) It just occurred to me how useful a live tail util would be. How would you implement one in Perl? Would the one at PPT (1) be the one to check out? Cheers, - jsproat 1. (URL) Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com> (URL) the Force be with (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
