Re: Dired C idea

[Gregory Heytings]

> > I would like to see some benchmark figures first. For example, I'm not 
> > sure that rsync performs better when the target directory does not 
> > exist yet, and there's nothing to sync.
>
> I made some comparison between "cp -pr" and "rsync -pr" on shell level. 
> [...] "rsync -pr" is slower than "cp -pr".

Yes, nothing can beat cp; rsync is always slower (and uses more memory) 
compared to cp because it does more than just copying files.  It is faster 
only when copying files from/to a remote host when some files already 
exist on both sides (which is its original purpose).

But rsync is also much more powerful tool compared to cp, even when it is 
used locally: as Richard said it can resume an aborted/partial copy, it 
can synchronize two directories, it has options to include or exclude file 
patterns, it has a progress indicator, and so forth.  So as the manpage 
says, it is an "improved copy command".