PLONK am Montag, 1. Juni 2020 um 23:28 schrieben Sie:
> Hi, > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:26 PM dmccunney > <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:35 PM Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > So no, I haven't tried rebuilding this (yet?), and I'm no *nix fiend, >> > but I do think AWK is a cool tool, maybe cooler than GW-BASIC (don't >> > kill me!). >> >> AWK is a cool tool. But it's not a full programming language for >> building stand alone apps. GWBASIC is. > I don't think this particular BASIC is a compiler, only an > interpreter. (The very first BASIC was a compiler.) > * https://time.com/69316/basic/ (fifty years of BASIC) > But there actually are compilers for AWK out there, even REXX! But > most implementations don't do that. (Why bother? Interpreted is often > fast enough.) > (untested by me, but just FYI) > * http://awka.sourceforge.net/index.html >> AWK (the initials of Alfred Aho, Thomas Weinberger, and Brian >> Kernighan, the authors) was a tool intended for querying and >> modifying the contents of text files. > * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWK > I'm actually a bigger fan of Sed, but that's much more limited > (intentionally?). Also, AWK vaguely reminds me of REXX in > functionality (although that, too, I only lightly dabbled in). > Obviously, REXX was more known on IBM mainframes and OS/2. > In recent years, BWK wrote a book on Go. That language has come a long > way and done a lot. A lot of people from Plan 9 still work on that. > Oh, one guy did write a compatible implementation of AWK in Go! > * https://golang.org/ > * https://github.com/benhoyt/goawk >> It was initially written to perform "one liners", where you invoked awk >> on a command line with the commands to execute and the data to examine. > I don't think UNIX originally came with a C compiler (except maybe > add-on?), so all you had was Sh and AWK. >> I attended a talk given by Weinberger decades ago where he described his >> shock on first >> seeing a multi-line awk script. > Yeah, here's a good interview with Alfred V. Aho. > * > http://web.archive.org/web/20101119053641/http://www.techworld.com.au/article/216844/a-z_programming_languages_awk/ >> Awk is still useful on *nix - various things like build recipes may >> use it in scripts - but for most purposes, perl has replaced it. (I >> consider that a pity. > I respect Larry Wall and Perl but never learned it. Honestly, I > dislike the various versions and non-standard incompatibilities. It's > a bit too brittle to rely upon (isn't everything? even "standards" > have many holes, buggy implementations; so, that's not really a Perl > problem, per se, just "life"). >> Awk is smaller and faster, and perl may be overkill for a lot of what you >> might need to do. > Sed is much lighter than AWK, so yes, even AWK can be overkill. Maybe > even Sed is overkill for some things. (Sed came from Ed, so I guess > Edlin would be loosely comparable in DOS circles.) >> Former Busybox maintainer Rob Landley griped elsewhere about sending patches >> to >> remove the dependency on Perl from Linux kernel builds, since awk did >> all that was needed, only to find it reappear again.) > I once told you that he should just use (BSD-licensed) AWK from old > Minix 2.x for ToyBox. Not sure if that's truly practical advice, > though. > Yes, Perl is overkill. You know, I rebuilt old NASM 0.98.39 [2005] > recently for 8086. (Pre-existing 16-bit DOS binaries were 186 only, > ugh, heheh.) Actually, I rebuilt it several times and (sometimes) used > Sed. Regenerating the instruction source files (for instance, to fit > into Large memory model with Turbo C++ 1.01) required omitting some > unnecessary things (e.g. MMX, SSE ... not commonly used in DOS). In > ancient NASM 0.97, there was a quick kludge to use QBASIC to > regenerate those source files, but it was later dropped (broken? > unmaintained?). 0.98.39 used Perl, which works but is bloated (and our > only DOS build still is DJGPP's old 5.8.8 from 2007). So I finagled it > a bit just to use Sed (only), which is much smaller and simpler (thus, > no Perl required). Oh, I also used AWK behind the scenes a bit to > help. (I never properly learned Perl but do have a book on it.) > Yeah, it's just a mess. Big projects are harder to maintain, and > unfortunately DOS is not "top tier" for most actively-developed > projects. Just to show how random it all is, we have three AWKs: MAWK > (DOS+OS/2 dual bound family .EXE) from 1996, BWK AWK from 2010 (OW > build), and GAWK (DJGPP) from 2019. This also is why our Python > (DJGPP) is from 2008 (2.4.2 or whatever). Similarly, Regina REXX > (3.9.1) doesn't directly compile with DJGPP anymore, and I was too > lazy to investigate further (stuck at 3.7). Ruby 1.8.4 had DJGPP > binaries, but after 1.8.7, it dropped source support for a lot of OSes > (although there was later an ISO standard for that). Even the Lua > (DJGPP) build is still stuck at 5.2.2 (2013). Oh, one guy did > apparently make LoveDOS (Lua, DJGPP) in 2017 for simple 2D games. > It's not that dire. Anybody interested could clean up and fix some of > these. I might even do it myself, but it's not pressing. There's > always more to do. > Sorry for the ramble, it's just a minefield of tools out there. Still fun! > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user Hallo Herr FreeDOS., Mit freundlichen Grüßen / with kind regards Tom Ehlert +49-241-79886 _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
