Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmurray | Hacker News Reader

What's the advantage? Forking processes is more heavyweight than a typical function call, but that's hardly a concern if the use case is a REPL.

View on HN

> What's the advantage? Forking processes is more heavyweight than a typical function call, but that's hardly a concern if the use case is a REPL.

I was wondering the same thing, to be honest - if you're in a REPL, does it matter that it takes 200ms to "call" a function than if it takes 20ms?

Sometimes, hitting those roadblocks leads to a better solution.

Maybe the new model is slower, and somebody looks into it, and realizes if they add a caching layer between the "REPL" module and the kernel ioctl, or service orwhatever, it will speed things up.

I run find and grep lot. And I'm sure the kernel caches a lot of the FS stuff, but there are higher-level things that could be cached and shared with other "REPL" modules. Like predictive URL middleware in browsers. Pluggable middleware that can be enabled or disabled.

Available now on the OS module store:

Larry's Grep Count Document Prefetch Module. Certified Safe by BlahCorp.

This isn't a new idea, and I'm sure others have had it before me.

That's actually pretty cool.

My post was a bit cynical, but the network effects would make it. The community would make it.

If it ever happened, I hope the contributors have fun.

it's not just about forking processes. Instead than a single binary that needs to satisfy as much use cases as possible while remaining small and general, you would have a lot of more atomic functions that users can mix and swap as needed case-by-case.

> Instead than a single binary that needs to satisfy as much use cases as possible while remaining small and general, you would have a lot of more atomic functions that users can mix and swap as needed case-by-case.

Maybe I'm missing something here (it's been a long time since I last looked at the busybox code), but isn't busybox a single file that has a lot of atomic functions that callers can mix and swap as needed, using the shell as a REPL?

IIRC, and please correct me if I am wrong), all those little functions in busybox are simply single functions. There's a `cat` function, and a `head` function, and a `cp` function, etc.

I don't see what can be gained by moving them into a library file, and using the shell to call those functions, instead of leaving them in the shell program and calling them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com