Comments on: Cleaning up a set of tags with Awk http://porg.es/blog/cleaning-up-a-set-of-tags-with-awk Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:16:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Porges http://porg.es/blog/cleaning-up-a-set-of-tags-with-awk/comment-page-1#comment-124722 Porges Sun, 31 May 2009 03:21:13 +0000 http://porg.es/blog/?p=266#comment-124722 Jonas: I suspect some implementations are faster than others. I am using mawk, which is the default on ’buntus :) Also good points about the filter; I suspect I wrote it that way because it's easier to see what's going on. Jonas: I suspect some implementations are faster than others. I am using mawk, which is the default on ’buntus

Also good points about the filter; I suspect I wrote it that way because it’s easier to see what’s going on.

]]> By: Jonas Lindström http://porg.es/blog/cleaning-up-a-set-of-tags-with-awk/comment-page-1#comment-124568 Jonas Lindström Sat, 30 May 2009 07:33:22 +0000 http://porg.es/blog/?p=266#comment-124568 Nice article. I am already a Ruby addict, and recently I have begun to use AWK more and more. Both languages have their strengths for text processing. Anything which calls for data structures, sorting and more complex stuff and I tend to use Ruby. AWK is great for oneliners and for writing small functions in shell scripts. A couple of notes about the alphabetic filter: the AWK version can be written even more concisely as <code lang="awk">/[a-zA-Z]/</code>, since it matches against <code>$0</code> anyway. <code lang="awk">/[[:alpha:]]/</code> might be even better. And the Ruby version is hampered by a needlessly convoluted implementation: <code lang="ruby">ruby -ne 'puts $_ if (/[[:alpha:]]/)'</code> is clearer and faster. The difference is in any case nowhere near 8-9 times on my machine. :) With the second Ruby version, AWK is only slightly faster. Nice article. I am already a Ruby addict, and recently I have begun to use AWK more and more. Both languages have their strengths for text processing. Anything which calls for data structures, sorting and more complex stuff and I tend to use Ruby. AWK is great for oneliners and for writing small functions in shell scripts.

A couple of notes about the alphabetic filter: the AWK version can be written even more concisely as /[a-zA-Z]/, since it matches against $0 anyway. /[[:alpha:]]/ might be even better.

And the Ruby version is hampered by a needlessly convoluted implementation:
ruby -ne 'puts $_ if (/[[:alpha:]]/)' is clearer and faster.

The difference is in any case nowhere near 8-9 times on my machine. With the second Ruby version, AWK is only slightly faster.

]]> By: Keith Pickett http://porg.es/blog/cleaning-up-a-set-of-tags-with-awk/comment-page-1#comment-103102 Keith Pickett Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:52:52 +0000 http://porg.es/blog/?p=266#comment-103102 It does my heart proud to see the classics still being used. It does my heart proud to see the classics still being used.

]]>