2 ms·

I would disagree that their way of writing it is silly. It is instantly plainly obvious to me what each step of their shell script is doing. While I can absol

I would disagree that their way of writing it is silly. It is instantly plainly obvious to me what each step of their shell script is doing. While I can absolutely understand what your shell script does after parsing it, it's meaning doesn't leap out at me in the same way. I would describe the prior shell script as more quickly readable than the one that you've listed. So, perhaps it's not a question of one being more silly than the other—perhaps the author just has different priorities from you?

anthk 8y ago
That's bullshit. On million files, spawning subproceses could add a several lag per pipe. This way, awk runs straightly. AWK is base knowledge on Unix. Shell scripts, specially the bloated bash, not. Readable? Priorities? I've done quicker jobs with awk and windows binary logs with strings(1) with the more than, literally, 100+ lines from newbies. If people learn more about its tools instead of adding bloat unnedeedly because of ignorance OLD and ULTRADOCUMMENTED UNIX tools, - -cough, GNU folks and GNU/Linux distros- most of the crappified scripts and (fake) "usability" switches woudn't even exist. Such as column, tr, "objdum -x $FILE | grep NEEDED" instead of ldd, tput for nice dialog like interfaces in shell, join, fmt, and so on. Also, makefiles/m4. They cut down times exponentially.