Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:06:41 -0500 From: "Pedro Fernando Giffuni" <pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co> To: token@wuff.mayn.de Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nawk vs gawk? (was Re: GNU GLOBAL) Message-ID: <37E82BA1.F47FB23B@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co> References: <19990921234228.3610.qmail@wuff.mayn.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The three of them are on the ports tree. mawk and gawk are GPL'd, nawk
is not.
I'm not sure if nawk is fully POSIX compliant but it is the "new" awk
described in Kernighans' book.
Yes mawk is the fastest of the three, but I'm not sure if speed is the
most important feature in a scripting language. Gawk has more features,
but I saw a test somewhere that showed a bug in the FreeBSD version. I
can dig it up if someone is really interested.
Pedro.
token@wuff.mayn.de wrote:
>
> Pedro Fernando Giffuni wrote:
>
> >Yes, I know that gawk is faster, but isn't nawk the one true (new) awk?
>
> >From my experience, the awk downloadable from Kernighan's web page
> (should be "nawk", shouldn't it?) is a little bit faster on average
> than gawk. Probably not much that it would really matter anyways.
> I've heard that another implementation, Mawk is still faster but
> I haven't tried it yet.
>
> mkb
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37E82BA1.F47FB23B>