4 ms·

> As they say: "Good programmer chooses the most powerful tool for the job, best programmer chooses the least powerful tool for the job". Also see [1]. I don't

> As they say: "Good programmer chooses the most powerful tool for the job, best programmer chooses the least powerful tool for the job". Also see [1]. I don't agree with this. For a network protocol, sure. But not for what Awk does. Tim Berners Lee's argument (in the Wikipedia page) does not apply to Awk. > Been universally available (as part of POSIX) and very compliant (language standard is almost unchanged for over 30 years now). There's tons of incompatible dialects. I think that shows the problem with what you're saying.

xonix 5y ago
>There's tons of incompatible dialects. I think that shows the problem with what you're saying. To my knowledge the major dialects in use are: - One True Awk (aka bwk) (https://github.com/onetrueawk/awk https://github.com/onetrueawk/awk) - this one is bundled in all *BSD/macOS - Gawk (https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/ https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/) - this one is bundled in most Linux - mawk (https://invisible-island.net/mawk/ https://invisible-island.net/mawk/) - bundled in some Linux distros (?), known as the fastest byte-code compiled implementation. All three have very good compatibility, but Gawk is super-set over POSIX standard. I have some evidence here, since I regularly test [1] against these implementations and even some others, like GoAWK. [1] https://github.com/xonixx/makesure/actions/runs/1830978431 https://github.com/xonixx/makesure/actions/runs/1830978431