Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
#2Not sure why it is even compared to awk instead of just cut. It could've been introduced as cut-like command with regex input field separator. Or at least not say things like:
>However, the awk command is not ideal for rapid shell use
And
>cut is far from ideal for rapid shell use, because of its confusing syntax
anything new is confusing until you learn enough to be comfortable
>ranges are just plain difficult to get right on the first try
and how does choose become easy to use with ':' character instead of '-'
Is this a typo or does inclusive/exclusive depend on whether first number is specified?
>choose 2:5 # print everything from the 2nd to 5th item on the line, _inclusive_ of the 5th
>choose :3 # print the beginning of the line to the 3rd item _exclusive_
Re: Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
#3I can't understand why you are mentioning awk. Cut or choose cannot be compared to awk, awk is a programming language.
Also I don't think that it's so much easier to use than cut. On the other hand every *nix system has cut so if you make scripts with it they are portable.
Re: Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
#4I can't understand why you are mentioning awk. Cut or choose cannot be compared to awk, awk is a programming language. Also I don't think that it's so much easier to use than cut. On the other hand every *nix system has cut so if you make scripts with it they are portable.
> I can't understand why you are mentioning awk. Cut or choose cannot be compared to awk, awk is a programming language.
Because 99% of awk IRL use is just as a fancier cut.
It's very rare someone even sets a variable using awk. If you do it, you are a statistical rarity.
> Also I don't think that it's so much easier to use than cut. On the other hand every *nix system has cut so if you make scripts with it they are portable.
I, for one, never remember the syntax for cut. If "choose" gets a deb, I'll use it: Python slicing is something familiar to me.
I don't care if cut is on every unix system: if I have the possibility to install things on the machine, then I'll just install what I need. I have a script for that. If I don't, I'll google/man/--help GNU commands as usual.
And as for writing shell scripts, I use Python anyway.
Re: Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
#5What does this do that cut can’t?
Re: Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
#6Not sure why it is even compared to awk instead of just cut. It could've been introduced as cut-like command with regex input field separator. Or at least not say things like: >However, the awk command is not ideal for rapid shell use And >cut is far from ideal for rapid shell use, because of its confusing syntax anything new is confusing until you learn enough to be comfortable >ranges are just plain difficult to ge…
I heard those arguments when ag went out as an alternative to grep, and ffind as an alternative to find.
But now, I install their successors, ripgrep and fdfind, on all my machines. Including the windows ones.
Re: Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
#7Someone should make a bundle installer with this, bat, fdfind and ripgrep. I do enjoy those alternative to GNU, and install as many as I can: they are easier to use, usually faster, and just make more sense to my brain.
This pain is real: https://xkcd.com/1168/
Re: Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
#8Hmm, so compared to cut this
1. saves -f because it doesn’t support cut’s -b and -c modes (edit: actually -c is supported, I just didn’t see it);
2. Uses -f instead of -d, making it rather confusing for cut users;
3. Uses : instead of - for range specifications;
4. Offers an exclusive indexing mode;
5. Misses a bunch of other cut features (assuming coreutils cut).
Not sure I see much appeal...
Edit: Another thing I missed: regex separator instead of just character list.
Re: Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
#9What does this do that cut can’t?
This is a poor question as it invokes the Turing tarpit. (Why using any language that is higher level than machine code?)
If it is more comfortable to use for some people then it’s a great invention.
Re: Show HN: Choose – An alternative to cut and sometimes awk
#10Not sure why it is even compared to awk instead of just cut. It could've been introduced as cut-like command with regex input field separator. Or at least not say things like: >However, the awk command is not ideal for rapid shell use And >cut is far from ideal for rapid shell use, because of its confusing syntax anything new is confusing until you learn enough to be comfortable >ranges are just plain difficult to ge…
I heard those arguments when ag went out as an alternative to grep, and ffind as an alternative to find. But now, I install their successors, ripgrep and fdfind, on all my machines. Including the windows ones.
I do not have an issue with this command, regex field separator and negative index alone makes it a good alternative over cut. And I use ripgrep too. I'm bothered by the description.
I would even suggest the command to add ability to invert the ranges, byte selection (if -c is character and not byte selection), add examples for character splitting in README, etc.