3 ms·

I'm challenged to see the virtue of M4 for string mangling over a scripting tool (e.g. python). Squeezing the repetition out of strings make sense, but Yet Ano

I'm challenged to see the virtue of M4 for string mangling over a scripting tool (e.g. python). Squeezing the repetition out of strings make sense, but Yet Another Mouth To Feed (YAMTF) has to bring something substantial to the project to justify inclusion.

mhd 4y ago
Isn't that the very point of picking m4, as it's always there on a POSIX system, whereas a proper scripting language might not be? It's been a while since I saw someone pick m4 when alternatives were present. These days it might be a bit different, as you might either be operating on a very stripped OS (container), and thus might need to provide all your tools anyways, or you might have a standard image with a more wider range of scripting opportunities (even Perl might be a good candidate here, as it's available on any system where you've got a non-restricted git installed).
- smitty1e 4y ago
  OK, historical reasons.
  - usgroup 4y ago
    Other than availability on POSIX systems, also that the macros are just text without fanfare. I.e. no double curlys etc, so its easy to accept as just an extension to SQL as you might do with a C pre-processor.
jjgreen 4y ago
Fewer deprecation warnings?