Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article
<0d4cb229-6030-426d-88d8-4981e1cfbdf0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Gordon Grieder <grieder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I wrote a few awk utilities which processes ~400MB logs from our
> >various Cisco PIXs and ~100 MB from squid proxies daily through cron
> >early every morning. Currently I've been running it with mawk and
> >everything is peachy.
> >
> >It seems that mawk has been abandoned, though. Is this the case? I do
> >sometimes run my scripts from the command line and that's where I see
> >the hit when I compare the two.
> >
> >So, to make a long query short: is mawk headed to the ghetto and would
> >it be wise to work with gawk or some other version of awk?[0]
> >
> > gg
> >
> >[0] Not trying to start a language war! Just wanting opinions!
>
> Well, the obvious answer is: If it works for you, why should you care
> about its being "abandoned" ?
Mainly for any new features that appear in gawk. I've always been a
big "if it ain't broke..." believer, my question was just to get a
feel for how mawk is seen by awk users in general.
> Two points:
> 1) mawk is available in source, so if you need to modify it, you
> can. I have made some modifications to mawk myself. The
> code is, at least when compared with gawk, quite clear and
> easy to work with
>.
> 2) mawk is much faster/more efficient than gawk. This matters
> given the size of your files.
Good points, especially #2.
Thanks!
gg
|
