Merge pull request #27 from tmck-code/20250519_get_unix_time_fast_with_pure_bash

add article: Get unix time FAST with pure bash

Author: tmck-code

README.md

@@ -4,6 +4,10 @@ my blog
 
 ---
 
+### [20250519 Get unix time FAST with pure bash](articles/20250519_get_unix_time_fast_with_pure_bash/20250519_get_unix_time_fast_with_pure_bash.md)
+
+> _Faster than the beloved `date +%s`_
+
 ### [20250506 Dictionary slice in Python](articles/20250506_dictionary_slice_in_python/20250506_dictionary_slice_in_python.md)
 
 > _Creating an equivalent of Ruby's 'Hash.slice' in python_

articles/20250519_get_unix_time_fast_with_pure_bash/20250519_get_unix_time_fast_with_pure_bash.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+# 20250519 Get unix time FAST with pure bash
+
+```shell
+printf '%(%s)T\n' -1
+```
+
+> _Beware! There are a few different versions of `printf` that could be installed on your machine:_
+
+```shell
+☯ type -a printf
+printf is a shell builtin
+printf is /usr/bin/printf
+printf is /bin/printf
+```
+
+The speed of this time command comes from the fact that it's a shell builtin and doesn't require forking a new process.
+
+I'm too dumb to figure out how to benchmark this inline using `hyperfine`, so I just created 2 files with the commands and made them executable with `chmod +x`:
+
+```shell
+ ☯ cat date.sh
+#!/bin/bash
+date +%s
+
+ ☯ cat printf.sh
+#!/bin/bash
+printf '%(%s)T\n' -1
+
+```
+## Results
+
+![benchmark](image.png)
+
+_On the same machine, it takes `0.9` seconds to run a file that is completely empty (apart from the shebang), which leaves the `printf` command as being almost instant 🚀_