4 ms·

>Heck, it sounds like bash/ask might even fit this use case if the code is so small as to not need functions. Assuming that "ask" was a typo and you meant "awk

by vram22 6y ago

>Heck, it sounds like bash/ask might even fit this use case if the code is so small as to not need functions. Assuming that "ask" was a typo and you meant "awk", awk does support user-defined functions, as does bash. https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/html_node/User_002ddefined.html#:~:text=9.2%20User-Defined%20Functions,awk%20what%20they%20should% https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/html_node/User_002d... https://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/functions.html https://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/functions.html The support for that in both is somewhat limited as compared to "full" programming languages, though.

7thaccount 6y ago
Yep, autocorrect I guess. My point being if someone is just doing a little string work than she'll scripting can be very performant and also dead simple. I normally think of scientific programming as something involving lots of large matrices, but that isn't the case for everything.
- proverbialbunny 6y ago
  >I normally think of scientific programming as something involving lots of large matrices, but that isn't the case for everything. It typically is. If you have the right libraries, it's only a few lines of code to do a lot of math. C = A + B could be matrix math, not just single variables being added.
  - 7thaccount 6y ago
    In my experience yes, but I started thinking about stuff like the human genome project which was mostly done with Perl scripts and BioPerl in the year 2000 iirc. I assume that is mostly just regex work dealing with very large strings. Is it scientific computing? Yes, just not as how I typically view scientific computing.