Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:36:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: No nawk ?? Message-ID: <200004081636.SAA07027@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> In-Reply-To: <8cjq58$2c7s$1@atlantis.rz.tu-clausthal.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In list.freebsd-arch Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@asme.org> wrote:
> I'm gonna regret this but ...while people are in this discussion may I
> bring again the nawk vs gawk discussion?
I'm not a comitter or anything, so maybe I'm not authorized
to jump in here, but...
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.
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... :-)
Just my 0.02 Euro.
Regards
Oliver
PS: I do not like tcsh at all (I'm into zsh, which -- by the
way -- can emulate csh within certain limits), but replacing
csh with tcsh is at least a step _forward_, somehow.
--
Oliver Fromme, Leibnizstr. 18/61, 38678 Clausthal, Germany
(Info: finger userinfo:olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de)
"In jedem Stück Kohle wartet ein Diamant auf seine Geburt"
(Terry Pratchett)
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?200004081636.SAA07027>