Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:48:16 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@asme.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No nawk ?? Message-ID: <20000420104816.G14732@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <20000409141853.C1252@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.ORG on Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 02:18:53PM -0700 References: <200004081636.SAA07027@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> <38EF78E3.B86EFC11@asme.org> <20000409141853.C1252@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <20000409141853.C1252@dragon.nuxi.com>, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:22:27PM -0500, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > > Check out mawk; it's faster and is fully POSIX. I agree that nawk is > > limited WRT the other awks, but I prefer it for the base system due to > > the history it has and because it's smaller and faster than gawk. GNU > > awk is the worst of the three options (many bugs, big and slow). > > If I'm unable to get nawk to work as our base awk, switching to mawk (for > the reasons above) is my other plan [sometime in the future of course]. I can't offer hard data either, but I remember mawk breaking on some valid extension-free scripts for me (coredumping) and nawk being rather slow. gawk seems to be the awk that most people step on and that gets most fixes. It is unfortunate that our standard awk support non-standard extensions, though, I wish it had a non-extensions mode like bash has. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000420104816.G14732>