11–20 of 66 posts
'sort | uniq -c | sort -n' is an interesting pipeline. It will always work and does a great job with large cardinality data on low memory systems. However, if you have the ram, or know the data set has a low cardinality (like, http status codes or filesnames instead of ip addresses) then something that works in memory will be much more efficient. I threw 144,000,000 'hello' and 'world' into a file: justin@box:~$ ls -…
I got excited when I saw the 'f' and 'count' commands, but they're just scripts he has on his system. Like doing grep 'plover' blah.log | cut -d ' ' -f 11 | sort | uniq -c | sort -n. Personally I'd prefer to use the ubiquitous commands that work everywhere than rely on having custom scripts on my system, but they are nice.
Is okay for one to have their own tools.
$ f() { printf "\$%s" "$1"; }
$ echo a b c | awk '{ print $(f 2) }'
I got excited when I saw the 'f' and 'count' commands, but they're just scripts he has on his system. Like doing grep 'plover' blah.log | cut -d ' ' -f 11 | sort | uniq -c | sort -n. Personally I'd prefer to use the ubiquitous commands that work everywhere than rely on having custom scripts on my system, but they are nice.
That's the whole point of shell scripting, to take a series of minimal programs and tie them together into something that does a more complex task. There's no reason to distrust a shell script simply because it is a script any more than there is to trust a binary simply because it's a binary.
I think it's less about not trusting custom scripts than it is about ensuring that your unix muscle memory doesn't atrophy.
I got excited when I saw the 'f' and 'count' commands, but they're just scripts he has on his system. Like doing grep 'plover' blah.log | cut -d ' ' -f 11 | sort | uniq -c | sort -n. Personally I'd prefer to use the ubiquitous commands that work everywhere than rely on having custom scripts on my system, but they are nice.
Most people who use Unix directly build up some stuff in ~/bin (often a misnomer because it's shell scripts and not binaries, although mine is less of a misnomer than most because so much is in C rather than shell). The trick is to build them out of the standard portable components that exist everywhere. (This means, among other things, no #!/bin/bash.)
I got excited when I saw the 'f' and 'count' commands, but they're just scripts he has on his system. Like doing grep 'plover' blah.log | cut -d ' ' -f 11 | sort | uniq -c | sort -n. Personally I'd prefer to use the ubiquitous commands that work everywhere than rely on having custom scripts on my system, but they are nice.
That's the whole point of shell scripting, to take a series of minimal programs and tie them together into something that does a more complex task. There's no reason to distrust a shell script simply because it is a script any more than there is to trust a binary simply because it's a binary.
"What if Unix had less compositionality but I could use it with less memorized trivia? Would that be an improvement? I don't know." The answer is "no" here, because the alternative doesn't exist. Could it be created? Maybe in theory, but I suspect that the amount of stuff that you'd need to memorize (or learn to look up) to use it effectively would be about the same for any system that allowed a similar variety of wo…
For example, the cut(1) command is intended to do precisely what his f script does. But it's inconvenient because unlike many other commands it (1) doesn't obey $IFS and (2) the -d delimiter option only takes a single character. This could and should be remediated with a new, simple option.
I think the only thing preventing that change is that there's not enough interest in moving POSIX forward faster; certainly not like JavaScript.
Another problem are GNU tools. They have many great features but OMG are they a nightmare of inconsistency. BSD extensions tend to be much better thought through, perhaps because GNU tools tend to be lead by a single developer while BSD tools tend to be more team oriented.
So the way forward isn't to replace the organic evolution, it's to layer on processes that refine the proven extensions. And we already have some of those processes in place; we just need to imbue them with more authority, and that starts by not rolling our eyes at standardization and portability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the whole point of shell scripting, to take a series of minimal programs and tie them together into something that does a more complex task. There's no reason to distrust a shell script simply because it is a script any more than there is to trust a binary simply because it's a binary.
Sure, but relying on custom shell scripts as unix primitives can be problematic if you find yourself frequently managing/troubleshooting systems that you don't own, and you don't want to (or aren't allowed to) put those handy scripts in place. Then when you're on any given system, you forget whether you can use "f", or if you have to fall back on awk. I think it's less about not trusting custom scripts than it is abo…
You start thinking about packaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the whole point of shell scripting, to take a series of minimal programs and tie them together into something that does a more complex task. There's no reason to distrust a shell script simply because it is a script any more than there is to trust a binary simply because it's a binary.
That’s the theory but frankly the syntax is so cumbersome, irregular and needs so many googling for "easy" things like conditional, substring, etc. that I now use a real programming language if a script needs to be anything more than a list of commands without any logic (besides variables substitution).
You are basically describing modern programming.
Script Language (or scripting) is a programming language.
And about the "real" programming language you can also trap yourself googling and installing yet another library (did you read the code?) and/or reimplementing existing tools from the unix programming environment.
Thanks for this! Another nice thing about /usr/bin/time is the --verbose flag which gives: Command being timed: "ls" User time (seconds): 0.00 System time (seconds): 0.00 Percent of CPU this job got: 0% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:00.00 Average shared text size (kbytes): 0 Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0 Average stack size (kbytes): 0 Average total size (kbytes): 0 Maximum resident set size…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people who use Unix directly build up some stuff in ~/bin (often a misnomer because it's shell scripts and not binaries, although mine is less of a misnomer than most because so much is in C rather than shell). The trick is to build them out of the standard portable components that exist everywhere. (This means, among other things, no #!/bin/bash.)
sed 's| no | not only |'