2 ms·

Anything that's slow to start is completely unusable as a general replacement for shell scripting. For specific use-cases where the script itself would take a l

Anything that's slow to start is completely unusable as a general replacement for shell scripting. For specific use-cases where the script itself would take a long time to run, a slow start may be fine, but `sh` scripts are used all over the place in contexts where you want it to do its thing and get out of the way as fast as possible (e.g. tweaking env vars or arguments before `exec`ing a binary).

Pet_Ant 1y ago
During boot my shell took 2.5s to start up. Now, it took 0.9s to start up. I have trouble imagining a scenario where scripting is adequate, but a second or two of start up is too much. I'm thinking maybe high-availability migration or something. The benefits to correctness from the (optional) type-system seem worth it even there.