Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:09:17 +0200 From: Wolfram Schneider <wosch@panke.de.freebsd.org> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GNU Awk replacement Message-ID: <19981022060917.A6585@panke.de.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810191403500.348-100000@picnic.mat.net>; from Chuck Robey on Mon, Oct 19, 1998 at 02:08:54PM -0400 References: <19981018223914.B25719@nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810191403500.348-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From my memory, kawk is 2 x slower than gawk. Wolfram On 1998-10-19 14:08:54 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > > Good question. Our kawk port (kawk-98.02.11). > > from http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/bwk/awk.tar.gz > > > > To quote: > > This is the version of awk described in "The AWK Programming Language", > > by Al Aho, Brian Kernighan, and Peter Weinberger > > (Addison-Wesley, 1988, ISBN 0-201-07981-X). > > > > It is under a Berkeley/MIT/CMU like copyright. > > I took a look at this. I _think_ it's what I would have named "nawk", > the new awk. I haven't checked it, and I don't immediately remember a > short test to prove it .... if I remember right, it was better usage of > associational arrays, and also better looping. I remember a while back, > learning the hard way that you really don't want to use the old, > original awk. Way too primitive for more than 10 liners. > > I think I'd be happy enough with kawk. Lucent has the copyright, but > it's totally open, they give it away. What's more, they've obviously > (see the FIXES file) kept putting real fixes into it, right up to this > year. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981022060917.A6585>