Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:50:49 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@freebsd.org> To: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RMS says: "Use BSD, for goodness sake!" Message-ID: <20030714055049.GA20757@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> In-Reply-To: <20030626115133.GA57378@iconoplex.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030625214311.00e5e240@localhost> <20030626010357.J508@hub.org> <20030626110336.GW34365@iconoplex.co.uk> <20030626113553.GA53078@packet.org.uk> <20030626115133.GA57378@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:51:33PM +0100, Paul Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:35:53PM +0100, Peter McGarvey wrote:
>
> > * Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> [2003-06-26 12:04:33 BST]:
> > > awk - encourage people to port their code away from awk. Big.
> >
> > Does anyone actually USE awk?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Other than to filter columns that is.
>
> That's exactly what it's used for. I haven't seen anybody use awk for more
> than a command line `awk '{print $4, $6}'` in years. I know one guy who uses
> it for other stuff, and he's moving it all to perl anyway. If we were to
> write a 'colprint' command that would do the same thing, most people would
> not notice the difference if it went.
Thats not true, I still use awk because its _there_, its not bloated
and does for smaller things exactly what I want.
Perl is nice, but why should I use something bloated, when a tool
with a smaller memory footprint does the job well ?
Andreas ///
--
Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE
Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030714055049.GA20757>