Hacker News Reader

Comment by goosemo | Hacker News Reader

You might want to rethink that a bit: http://anyall.org/blog/2009/09/dont-mawk-awk-the-fastest-and...

That's mawk. I'm talking about the implementation that post calls "nawk", and either way, I mean orders of magnitude - I care about a 10-100+x difference in speed, not a 1.1-5x one. Awk and Python fall in roughly the same performance tier for that kind of code.

Also: "I have since found large datasets where mawk is buggy and gives the wrong result. nawk seems safe." makes me uneasy, as does the fact that it was unmaintained for a while.

Afaict, mawk's maintenance seems to be a bit up in the air--- the original maintainer basically disappeared years ago and hasn't blessed any successor, so the Debian-patched version became the de-facto current version, since at least it staved off bitrot. Recently someone (Thomas Dickey) picked up maintenance of a new upstream version unilaterally, starting from the Debian-patched version, but he hasn't managed to convince the Debian mawk maintainer to accept his new version as a new upstream (somewhat testy thread here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=554167). I'm personally a little more comfortable with something actively maintained like gawk, despite the speed differences.

Right. I usually use (n)awk because it's the default on OpenBSD, but have to admit gawk's artificial-filesystem-based networking support is pretty cool.

Ultimately, what are you implying? Am I wrong? Awk (any implementation) isn't as fast as C, LuaJIT, or OCaml. It's likely to be good enough for many things, though (certainly prototyping), and it's definitely convenient for quick scripts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com