Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 13:22:27 -0500 From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@asme.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No nawk ?? Message-ID: <38EF78E3.B86EFC11@asme.org> References: <200004081636.SAA07027@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
...
>
> Replacing gawk with nawk would be a large step backwards for
> me, because it would break many (if not most) of my scripts.
> And this is really _many_. nawk doesn't have such useful
> things like gensub(), systime(), strftime(), support for
> certain pseudo-files such as /dev/pid, /dev/user and a lot of
> other things.
>
Excuse my ignorance, but are these extensions standard (POSIX) or GNU?
If they are GNU extensions my opinion is that they should not be in the
base system. The reason would be the same for not depending on gcc's GNU
extensions to build a kernel.
> Of course, I could install gawk from the ports, but does that
> justify a step backwards? I'd think it violates POLA. At
> the very minimum, I'd have to fix the path #!/usr/bin/awk -f
> in all of the scripts... :-)
>
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).
I have only made some very simplistic tests, so this can be considered
only IMHO.
cheers,
Pedro.
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?38EF78E3.B86EFC11>