4 ms·

The nice thing about awk is that it's really only suitable for simple record processing. You therefore stop using fairly quickly when the problem reaches suffic

The nice thing about awk is that it's really only suitable for simple record processing. You therefore stop using fairly quickly when the problem reaches sufficient complexity to use a better suited language. It's like a very neat, small domain specific language for use processing simple record based text files. And within those limits it's super useful.

vram22 9y ago
>The nice thing about awk is that it's really only suitable for simple record processing. Not exactly only simple processing, IMO. Record processing, yes - it is a domain specific language, and its core feature is the pattern-action thing, and it was (at least originally) meant mainly to operate on record-oriented text files (even if on lines, since a line is a record with one column). I don't have good examples off the top of my head, but can mention a few things: The books The Unix Programming Environment by Kernighan and Pike, and either Programming Pearls or More Programming Pearls, by Jon Bentley, have some examples of advanced uses of awk - so it is not just for simple record processing. And I've read somewhere that just shell and awk and other Unix tools have even been used to create a DBMS of sorts. Plus, with later versions like GNU awk and so on, they've added more features to the language, including probably many more built-in functions, and also some network programming support [1]. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-complex-software-written-in-Awk https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-complex-software-writ... According to an answer at the above link, an nroff-subset text formatter and Lisp subset interpreter have been written in awk. Those are more complex than simple record processing. Also: [1] Effective awk Programming, 3rd Edition http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596000707.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596000707.do
- comstock 9y ago
  Right, I mean it's Turing complete, and you can do anything you want. But at least when I use it, I quickly reach for another language after using it for basic reformatting/simple calculations because using awk to do so would be too difficult and awkward.
  - vram22 9y ago
    I get you now.

vram22 9y ago

>The nice thing about awk is that it's really only suitable for simple record processing. Not exactly only simple processing, IMO. Record processing, yes - it is a domain specific language, and its core feature is the pattern-action thing, and it was (at least originally) meant mainly to operate on record-oriented text files (even if on lines, since a line is a record with one column). I don't have good examples off the top of my head, but can mention a few things: The books The Unix Programming Environment by Kernighan and Pike, and either Programming Pearls or More Programming Pearls, by Jon Bentley, have some examples of advanced uses of awk - so it is not just for simple record processing. And I've read somewhere that just shell and awk and other Unix tools have even been used to create a DBMS of sorts. Plus, with later versions like GNU awk and so on, they've added more features to the language, including probably many more built-in functions, and also some network programming support [1]. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-complex-software-written-in-Awk https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-complex-software-writ... According to an answer at the above link, an nroff-subset text formatter and Lisp subset interpreter have been written in awk. Those are more complex than simple record processing. Also: [1] Effective awk Programming, 3rd Edition http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596000707.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596000707.do

comstock 9y ago
Right, I mean it's Turing complete, and you can do anything you want. But at least when I use it, I quickly reach for another language after using it for basic reformatting/simple calculations because using awk to do so would be too difficult and awkward.
- vram22 9y ago
  I get you now.