Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
TAWK lives...?
1,566 views
Skip to first unread message
crackerjack
Aug 18, 2011, 7:33:31 PM8/18/11
to
Hi - this may be a long shot...
TAWK - the absolutely wonderful awk variant/compiler from Thomson
Automation (sadly, defunct) is no longer available as a commercial
product - however it still works a treat even on 64-bit Windows 7
platform.
I am fairly proficient with awk (gawk, mainly), and would see a huge
amount of value in using tawk and its enhance features to it's full
extent. My problem is that I am unable to obtain a manual for tawk 5.0
which would unlock all the marvelous capabilities tawk holds.
If there is anyone, anywhere in the world who has a manual (hard or
scanned copy) available - I would really like to hear from you. I am
willing to pay a reasonable amount to obtain such...
Thanks and regards,
Lance - Melbourne, Australia.
Ed Morton
Aug 19, 2011, 11:50:10 AM8/19/11
to
Tawk is gone, RIP. Couldn't you instead put your effort into helping evolve gawk
to include the tawk features you feel gawk is missing?
Ed.
Kenny McCormack
Aug 19, 2011, 11:57:47 AM8/19/11
to
In article <j2m0ni$c7j$1...@dont-email.me>,
Ed Morton <morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Tawk is gone, RIP. Couldn't you instead put your effort into helping
>evolve gawk
>to include the tawk features you feel gawk is missing?
>
> Ed.
Ed Morton <morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Tawk is gone, RIP. Couldn't you instead put your effort into helping
>evolve gawk
>to include the tawk features you feel gawk is missing?
>
> Ed.
That's like saying:
A: I have a Porsche - but I've lost the manual. Can you help me?
B: Forget it. Please join the effort to upgrade my VW bug.
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as foolish,
and by the rulers as useful.
(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
Ed Morton
Aug 19, 2011, 12:30:00 PM8/19/11
to
On 8/19/2011 10:57 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article<j2m0ni$c7j$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Ed Morton<morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Tawk is gone, RIP. Couldn't you instead put your effort into helping
>> evolve gawk
>> to include the tawk features you feel gawk is missing?
>>
>> Ed.
>
> That's like saying:
>
> A: I have a Porsche - but I've lost the manual. Can you help me?
>
> B: Forget it. Please join the effort to upgrade my VW bug.
>
> In article<j2m0ni$c7j$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Ed Morton<morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Tawk is gone, RIP. Couldn't you instead put your effort into helping
>> evolve gawk
>> to include the tawk features you feel gawk is missing?
>>
>> Ed.
>
> That's like saying:
>
> A: I have a Porsche - but I've lost the manual. Can you help me?
>
> B: Forget it. Please join the effort to upgrade my VW bug.
>
That's the worst analogy I've seen in a long time. Porche's are still in
production so you know where to go to get a new Porshe today, you know where to
go to get your Porsche fixed if it has a problem, and you know there will be new
Porsches coming out in future with enhanced features. You're also probably not
going to be using your Porsche as a work vehicle and a Porsche costs slightly
more than a gawk installation and so once you buy one you have more incentive to
hang onto it than go out and get a new car. Finally, Porsche are probably less
open to people making contributions to their design and implementation than
Arnold is with gawk.
A better (but still not great) analogy would be:
A: I have a Motorolla StarTac phone - but I've lost the manual. Can you help me?
B: Forget it. Please switch to Android and contribute an App or suggest Apps in
a forum where others are willing to construct them.
I personally liked my Motorolla StarTac, though only having battery life for 1
2-minute call per day towards the end did get kinda old... :-( .
Regards,
Ed.
crackerjack
Aug 19, 2011, 11:09:20 PM8/19/11
to
outset, it was a long shot.
I would love to help out with gawk and those of us who share an
interest should really be thankful to Arnold for his massive
contribution. I guess though, that without a full knowledge of what
tawk could do (in the absence of the impossible to obtain manual) it's
a bit tricky knowing what to add to gawk. Thanks all the same. Now I'm
off to go locate the keys to my Porsche... possibly left them
somewhere with my StarTac phone. Hmmm...
weak...@gmail.com
Jun 10, 2013, 12:58:12 PM6/10/13
to
erin....@gmail.com
Jun 11, 2013, 6:31:47 PM6/11/13
to
On Thursday, August 18, 2011 5:33:31 PM UTC-6, crackerjack wrote:
Erin
Ed Morton
Jun 11, 2013, 11:33:49 PM6/11/13
to
instead. Spend the time you save listening to cassette tapes on your Walkman
while reading that nice set of Encyclopedias.
Ed.
Ed.
Kenny McCormack
Jun 12, 2013, 2:11:53 AM6/12/13
to
In article <kp8ptu$4qv$1...@dont-email.me>,
Nonsense. Many of us continue to use TAWK on a daily basis and it is far,
far superior to GAWK, even to this day.
Seriously, if GAWK were as good, we'd stop using TAWK. It (GAWK) is
getting (somewhat) close, but it isn't there yet.
None of this should be taken as a slam against GAWK. GAWK is a very good
program and has made a lot of progress lately, but, as I say, it's still
not quite in TAWK's league.
Further, if what you are saying is that the real question "What should we
recommend to newbies?", then I have no quarrel. Clearly, something that
they can get is a superior choice to something that that they cannot. But, as
you can clearly see, that is a different question than "What should I use?"
--
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...
>Guys, tawks been gone for a decade, just get gawk and learn how to use that
>instead. Blah, blah, blah...
Nonsense. Many of us continue to use TAWK on a daily basis and it is far,
far superior to GAWK, even to this day.
Seriously, if GAWK were as good, we'd stop using TAWK. It (GAWK) is
getting (somewhat) close, but it isn't there yet.
None of this should be taken as a slam against GAWK. GAWK is a very good
program and has made a lot of progress lately, but, as I say, it's still
not quite in TAWK's league.
Further, if what you are saying is that the real question "What should we
recommend to newbies?", then I have no quarrel. Clearly, something that
they can get is a superior choice to something that that they cannot. But, as
you can clearly see, that is a different question than "What should I use?"
--
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...
Ed Morton
Jun 12, 2013, 9:39:51 AM6/12/13
to
power to you, but when you're "trying to get it to run on my Win7 64-bit laptop"
(as was stated in the post I replied to) or otherwise having to put effort into
making it work somewhere then it's time to move on and put the effort into
making the currently supported awk work for you instead.
Ed.
Kenny McCormack
Jun 12, 2013, 9:52:04 AM6/12/13
to
In article <kp9te8$296$1...@dont-email.me>,
But it is OK - neither one of us is likely to succeed in changing the
other's mind.
--
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -
>What I'm saying is this: If you have tawk installed and are happy using it, more
>power to you, but when you're "trying to get it to run on my Win7 64-bit laptop"
>(as was stated in the post I replied to) or otherwise having to put effort into
>making it work somewhere then it's time to move on and put the effort into
>making the currently supported awk work for you instead.
And I'm saying that what you are saying is nonsense.
>power to you, but when you're "trying to get it to run on my Win7 64-bit laptop"
>(as was stated in the post I replied to) or otherwise having to put effort into
>making it work somewhere then it's time to move on and put the effort into
>making the currently supported awk work for you instead.
But it is OK - neither one of us is likely to succeed in changing the
other's mind.
--
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -
catsk...@yahoo.com
Jun 12, 2013, 11:54:26 PM6/12/13
to
I started to do all my development in gawk when Tawk became unsupported.
I did a lot of testing for Pat Thompson in the early 90's and was sad to
learn of him closing up shop. That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
a source into a standalone executable which all other awk's lack. I no longer
have a Windows XP SP3 machine but TA's awk & awkc (DOS interpreter & compiler)
worked just fine. TA's awkw & awkcw (Windows interpreter & compiler) also worked
on XP 32-bit. I don't know about Windows 7 as I've never owned that o/s.
However, on Windows 8 64-bit both awkw & awkcw work just fine.
Dan Nielsen
I did a lot of testing for Pat Thompson in the early 90's and was sad to
learn of him closing up shop. That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
a source into a standalone executable which all other awk's lack. I no longer
have a Windows XP SP3 machine but TA's awk & awkc (DOS interpreter & compiler)
worked just fine. TA's awkw & awkcw (Windows interpreter & compiler) also worked
on XP 32-bit. I don't know about Windows 7 as I've never owned that o/s.
However, on Windows 8 64-bit both awkw & awkcw work just fine.
Dan Nielsen
Janis Papanagnou
Jun 13, 2013, 3:15:55 AM6/13/13
to
On 13.06.2013 05:54, catsk...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I started to do all my development in gawk when Tawk became unsupported.
> I did a lot of testing for Pat Thompson in the early 90's and was sad to
> learn of him closing up shop. That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
> a source into a standalone executable which all other awk's lack. [...]
> I started to do all my development in gawk when Tawk became unsupported.
> I did a lot of testing for Pat Thompson in the early 90's and was sad to
> learn of him closing up shop. That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
There had been the awka compiler; to my best knowledge also not supported
any more since around a decade or so.
Janis
Aharon Robbins
Jun 13, 2013, 11:52:47 AM6/13/13
to
In article <9ae11996-21f4-4d4d...@googlegroups.com>,
the GPL.
Although gawk won't automatically parse an extern declaration for linking
to C code, with the extension API it's fairly straightforward to write
routines that will do so.
And if someone wanted to look at adding gawk support to SWIG, I think
that would be a good idea.
Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
--
Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com
P.O. Box 354 Home Phone: +972 8 979-0381
Nof Ayalon
D.N. Shimshon 9978500 ISRAEL
<catsk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
>a source into a standalone executable which all other awk's lack.
Gawk will likely never develop this feature as I believe it would violate
>That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
>a source into a standalone executable which all other awk's lack.
the GPL.
Although gawk won't automatically parse an extern declaration for linking
to C code, with the extension API it's fairly straightforward to write
routines that will do so.
And if someone wanted to look at adding gawk support to SWIG, I think
that would be a good idea.
Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
--
Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com
P.O. Box 354 Home Phone: +972 8 979-0381
Nof Ayalon
D.N. Shimshon 9978500 ISRAEL
Kenny McCormack
Jun 13, 2013, 2:06:33 PM6/13/13
to
In article <kpcpse$gop$1...@dont-email.me>,
is illegal to use GNU tools to produce closed-source software. I certainly
doubt that is true. Don't people use GCC to compile production software?
>Although gawk won't automatically parse an extern declaration for linking
>to C code, with the extension API it's fairly straightforward to write
>routines that will do so.
I'm real curious where this is coming from. Did someone mention this?
>And if someone wanted to look at adding gawk support to SWIG, I think
>that would be a good idea.
I'll have to Google "SWIG".
>Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
Yes. But I really don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole, do we?
--
People who say they'll vote for someone else because Obama couldn't solve
all of Bush's messes are like people complaining that he couldn't cure cancer,
so they'll go and vote for cancer.
Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>In article <9ae11996-21f4-4d4d...@googlegroups.com>,
> <catsk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
>>a source into a standalone executable which all other awk's lack.
>
>Gawk will likely never develop this feature as I believe it would violate
>the GPL.
I'd be curious as to why. It (almost) sounds like you are saying that it
>In article <9ae11996-21f4-4d4d...@googlegroups.com>,
> <catsk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
>>a source into a standalone executable which all other awk's lack.
>
>Gawk will likely never develop this feature as I believe it would violate
>the GPL.
is illegal to use GNU tools to produce closed-source software. I certainly
doubt that is true. Don't people use GCC to compile production software?
>Although gawk won't automatically parse an extern declaration for linking
>to C code, with the extension API it's fairly straightforward to write
>routines that will do so.
>And if someone wanted to look at adding gawk support to SWIG, I think
>that would be a good idea.
>Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
--
People who say they'll vote for someone else because Obama couldn't solve
all of Bush's messes are like people complaining that he couldn't cure cancer,
so they'll go and vote for cancer.
Janis Papanagnou
Jun 13, 2013, 2:18:21 PM6/13/13
to
On 13.06.2013 20:06, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <kpcpse$gop$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>
>> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>
> Yes. But I really don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole, do we?
I'd be curious.[*] And wouldn't it possibly be inspiring for the gawk
> In article <kpcpse$gop$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>
>> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>
> Yes. But I really don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole, do we?
development?
Janis
[*] Not that I know what to expect deep down in that rabbit hole that
you seem to have explored already. :-)
Aharon Robbins
Jun 14, 2013, 3:39:01 AM6/14/13
to
In article <kpd1n9$kb8$1...@news.xmission.com>,
include significant parts of gawk itself in the executable. Gawk being
GPL'ed, the whole executable would have to be.
>>Although gawk won't automatically parse an extern declaration for linking
>>to C code, with the extension API it's fairly straightforward to write
>>routines that will do so.
>
>I'm real curious where this is coming from. Did someone mention this?
Not the parsing part, but the hooking of gawk to C libraries is straightforward.
It's all explained in the doc (over 50 pages worth!). Also available online.
>>And if someone wanted to look at adding gawk support to SWIG, I think
>>that would be a good idea.
>
>I'll have to Google "SWIG".
This is a tool that generates glue code for perl and many other languages
between the interpreter and C or C++. It reads C headers
>>Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>
>Yes. But I really don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole, do we?
I did a quick perusal of the tawk 5 PDF manual. Things like abort, INIT, EXIT
and TERM don't strike me as significant. abort is
function abort() { system("kill -9 " PROCINFO["pid"]) }
Gawk has a very full featured debugger. It's not screen based but I don't
think that's an issue.
Let's sharpen the question:
What other *major* features cannot be implemented either in library
awk code or using the existing extension mechanism?
Arnold
Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>In article <kpcpse$gop$1...@dont-email.me>,
>Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>>In article <9ae11996-21f4-4d4d...@googlegroups.com>,
>> <catsk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
>>>a source into a standalone executable which all other awk's lack.
>>
>>Gawk will likely never develop this feature as I believe it would violate
>>the GPL.
>
>I'd be curious as to why. It (almost) sounds like you are saying that it
>is illegal to use GNU tools to produce closed-source software. I certainly
>doubt that is true. Don't people use GCC to compile production software?
Not for this reason. But because any such standalone executable would
>In article <kpcpse$gop$1...@dont-email.me>,
>Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>>In article <9ae11996-21f4-4d4d...@googlegroups.com>,
>> <catsk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>That being said, Tawk has the ability to compile
>>>a source into a standalone executable which all other awk's lack.
>>
>>Gawk will likely never develop this feature as I believe it would violate
>>the GPL.
>
>I'd be curious as to why. It (almost) sounds like you are saying that it
>is illegal to use GNU tools to produce closed-source software. I certainly
>doubt that is true. Don't people use GCC to compile production software?
include significant parts of gawk itself in the executable. Gawk being
GPL'ed, the whole executable would have to be.
>>Although gawk won't automatically parse an extern declaration for linking
>>to C code, with the extension API it's fairly straightforward to write
>>routines that will do so.
>
>I'm real curious where this is coming from. Did someone mention this?
It's all explained in the doc (over 50 pages worth!). Also available online.
>>And if someone wanted to look at adding gawk support to SWIG, I think
>>that would be a good idea.
>
>I'll have to Google "SWIG".
between the interpreter and C or C++. It reads C headers
>>Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>
>Yes. But I really don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole, do we?
and TERM don't strike me as significant. abort is
function abort() { system("kill -9 " PROCINFO["pid"]) }
Gawk has a very full featured debugger. It's not screen based but I don't
think that's an issue.
Let's sharpen the question:
What other *major* features cannot be implemented either in library
awk code or using the existing extension mechanism?
Arnold
Janis Papanagnou
Jun 14, 2013, 4:36:46 AM6/14/13
to
Am 14.06.2013 09:39, schrieb Aharon Robbins:
> In article <kpd1n9$kb8$1...@news.xmission.com>,
> Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <kpcpse$gop$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
[...]
> In article <kpd1n9$kb8$1...@news.xmission.com>,
> Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <kpcpse$gop$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>
>>> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>>
>> Yes. But I really don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole, do we?
>
> I did a quick perusal of the tawk 5 PDF manual. Things like abort, INIT, EXIT
> and TERM don't strike me as significant. abort is
>
> function abort() { system("kill -9 " PROCINFO["pid"]) }
Relevance/significance of that feature aside; but that workaround
>>> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>>
>> Yes. But I really don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole, do we?
>
> I did a quick perusal of the tawk 5 PDF manual. Things like abort, INIT, EXIT
> and TERM don't strike me as significant. abort is
>
> function abort() { system("kill -9 " PROCINFO["pid"]) }
may be an issue on the WinDOS platform, I suppose. (Personally I
avoid system(), not only when "travelling" between platforms.)
Janis
> [...]
Janis Papanagnou
Jun 18, 2013, 12:36:44 PM6/18/13
to
On 13.06.2013 20:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 13.06.2013 20:06, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <kpcpse$gop$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>>
>> Yes. But I really don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole, do we?
>
> I'd be curious.[*] And wouldn't it possibly be inspiring for the gawk
> development?
>
> On 13.06.2013 20:06, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <kpcpse$gop$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>>
>> Yes. But I really don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole, do we?
>
> I'd be curious.[*] And wouldn't it possibly be inspiring for the gawk
> development?
>
> [*] Not that I know what to expect deep down in that rabbit hole that
> you seem to have explored already. :-)
>
Well, no input yet from the one suggesting there might be significant
> you seem to have explored already. :-)
>
features?
So I am jumping in with one thing I seem to remember to have been said
to be in tawk; first class regexp constants, and thus being able to pass
them as (pre-compiled) objects to functions and not have the character
escape hassle with strings containing dynamic regexps. This is one thing
I think would be useful.
Still interested in input from folks who are familiar with tawk features.
Janis
Aharon Robbins
Jun 18, 2013, 1:11:01 PM6/18/13
to
In article <kpq2ah$jnp$1...@news.m-online.net>,
OK, that's a good one. It's also a hard one, since there are real
compatibility issues. I would have to think about how to allow something
like that in a way that would clearly break on a different awk.
compatibility issues. I would have to think about how to allow something
like that in a way that would clearly break on a different awk.
r9b...@gmail.com
Dec 13, 2013, 8:01:13 PM12/13/13
to
Sorry to be late to the party. Found this conversation during my occasional check for the return of Pat Thompson. TAWK features that I'd like to see in GAWK:
substr() as an lvalue. Very handy to be able to stuff something into $0, for example.
real variable declarations: global, module local, function local (including local to a program block). Initializations with the declaration. Much more elegant than string extra names onto a function declaration.
I need to do some homework before making further suggestions, to avoid features already in current GAWK.
Other
I read that Pat had gone to Thailand; Jan 2006 someone posted that he was back.
TAWK manual was edited by Jean DeMaiffe. She may still have a copy of the document, and perhaps could be persuaded to share it. I'd love to have that, or even a PDF - mine is getting worn. http://dougandjean.com/jean/jresume.htm
The TAWK page is still up http://www.tasoft.com/ and continues to state "If any very experienced C programmer is interested in continuing to expand the software please email me." sup...@tasoft.com
substr() as an lvalue. Very handy to be able to stuff something into $0, for example.
real variable declarations: global, module local, function local (including local to a program block). Initializations with the declaration. Much more elegant than string extra names onto a function declaration.
I need to do some homework before making further suggestions, to avoid features already in current GAWK.
Other
I read that Pat had gone to Thailand; Jan 2006 someone posted that he was back.
TAWK manual was edited by Jean DeMaiffe. She may still have a copy of the document, and perhaps could be persuaded to share it. I'd love to have that, or even a PDF - mine is getting worn. http://dougandjean.com/jean/jresume.htm
The TAWK page is still up http://www.tasoft.com/ and continues to state "If any very experienced C programmer is interested in continuing to expand the software please email me." sup...@tasoft.com
ggrothendieck
Dec 13, 2013, 9:34:04 PM12/13/13
to
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:52:47 AM UTC-4, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>
> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>
Since this thread seems to have been revied, this page lists tawk features not in awk:
>
> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>
http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/unix/sedawk/ch11_03.htm
Aharon Robbins
Dec 17, 2013, 11:24:54 AM12/17/13
to
In article <305930f0-0aea-4554...@googlegroups.com>,
1. This is an ILLEGAL copy of *my* book, one that by being put up on
the Internet violates the license agreement under which it was bought,
and causes direct loss of royalty income to me.
2. It is severely out of date, written ~ 17 years ago. Gawk has changed
since then. (Apparently tawk hasn't, though.)
3. I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it again:
Wishing aloud in comp.lang.awk for new gawk features is
about the worst way there is to actually cause such features
to come into existence.
4. I don't know if I've said it in so many words, but I guess I need
to do so:
It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor do I ever expect it
to be, a goal for gawk to become an exact tawk clone.
And of course, I have to ask. Has anyone actually written to that email
address on the tawk website? If so, have you gotten a response?
Arnold
the Internet violates the license agreement under which it was bought,
and causes direct loss of royalty income to me.
2. It is severely out of date, written ~ 17 years ago. Gawk has changed
since then. (Apparently tawk hasn't, though.)
3. I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it again:
Wishing aloud in comp.lang.awk for new gawk features is
about the worst way there is to actually cause such features
to come into existence.
4. I don't know if I've said it in so many words, but I guess I need
to do so:
It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor do I ever expect it
to be, a goal for gawk to become an exact tawk clone.
And of course, I have to ask. Has anyone actually written to that email
address on the tawk website? If so, have you gotten a response?
Arnold
ggrothendieck
Dec 17, 2013, 2:09:56 PM12/17/13
to
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:24:54 AM UTC-5, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> In article <305930f0-0aea-4554...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> ggrothendieck <ggroth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:52:47 AM UTC-4, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Since this thread seems to have been revied, this page lists tawk
>
> >features not in awk:
>
> >http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/unix/sedawk/ch11_03.htm
>
>
>
> 1. This is an ILLEGAL copy of *my* book, one that by being put up on
>
> the Internet violates the license agreement under which it was bought,
>
> and causes direct loss of royalty income to me.
>
>
>
> 2. It is severely out of date, written ~ 17 years ago. Gawk has changed
>
> since then. (Apparently tawk hasn't, though.)
>
>
>
> 3. I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it again:
>
>
>
> Wishing aloud in comp.lang.awk for new gawk features is
>
> about the worst way there is to actually cause such features
>
> to come into existence.
>
>
>
> 4. I don't know if I've said it in so many words, but I guess I need
>
> to do so:
>
>
>
> It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor do I ever expect it
>
> to be, a goal for gawk to become an exact tawk clone.
I was responding to your email in which you specifically asked "Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?" pointing out to a link which seemed pertinent.
> In article <305930f0-0aea-4554...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> ggrothendieck <ggroth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:52:47 AM UTC-4, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Are there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Since this thread seems to have been revied, this page lists tawk
>
> >features not in awk:
>
> >http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/unix/sedawk/ch11_03.htm
>
>
>
> 1. This is an ILLEGAL copy of *my* book, one that by being put up on
>
> the Internet violates the license agreement under which it was bought,
>
> and causes direct loss of royalty income to me.
>
>
>
> 2. It is severely out of date, written ~ 17 years ago. Gawk has changed
>
> since then. (Apparently tawk hasn't, though.)
>
>
>
> 3. I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it again:
>
>
>
> Wishing aloud in comp.lang.awk for new gawk features is
>
> about the worst way there is to actually cause such features
>
> to come into existence.
>
>
>
> 4. I don't know if I've said it in so many words, but I guess I need
>
> to do so:
>
>
>
> It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor do I ever expect it
>
> to be, a goal for gawk to become an exact tawk clone.
Aharon Robbins
Dec 17, 2013, 2:23:18 PM12/17/13
to
In article <257a39bc-d923-4d8b...@googlegroups.com>,
Much of this was discussed back in June in the original thread, 6 months
ago.
It seems like I have to do this:
Assigning to substr() is largely syntactic sugar. IMHO it's a bad idea
since it introduces a huge inconsistency into the language. I don't
intend to implement it.
The ability to create executable binaries from awk programs goes
against the Free Software nature of gawk. I don't intend to implement
that either.
Regular expressions as first class objects would be a useful feature
to have; most likely, if I ever do it, with a modified syntax: @/..../.
Useful but not exciting.
Just about everything else that tawk may have that gawk doesn't, IMO,
counts as minor features that could be implemented either in awk
or using the extension mechanism.
I leave it to anyone who has an itch for a particular feature to
scratch the itch themselves.
Personally, I'm rather tired of hearing about tawk. It was great for its
time and for what it had. But now, in 2013, it's zombieware.
If you have it and you're happy with it, by all means continue using it.
Just stop nattering at me about it.
Otherwise, if you want something in gawk, CONTRIBUTE instead of
just wishing aloud.
ggrothendieck <ggroth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I was responding to your email in which you specifically asked "Are
>there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?"
>pointing out to a link which seemed pertinent.
And I was pointing out that the link wasn't pertinent.
>I was responding to your email in which you specifically asked "Are
>there *significant* other features in tawk that gawk doesn't have?"
>pointing out to a link which seemed pertinent.
Much of this was discussed back in June in the original thread, 6 months
ago.
It seems like I have to do this:
Assigning to substr() is largely syntactic sugar. IMHO it's a bad idea
since it introduces a huge inconsistency into the language. I don't
intend to implement it.
The ability to create executable binaries from awk programs goes
against the Free Software nature of gawk. I don't intend to implement
that either.
Regular expressions as first class objects would be a useful feature
to have; most likely, if I ever do it, with a modified syntax: @/..../.
Useful but not exciting.
Just about everything else that tawk may have that gawk doesn't, IMO,
counts as minor features that could be implemented either in awk
or using the extension mechanism.
I leave it to anyone who has an itch for a particular feature to
scratch the itch themselves.
Personally, I'm rather tired of hearing about tawk. It was great for its
time and for what it had. But now, in 2013, it's zombieware.
If you have it and you're happy with it, by all means continue using it.
Just stop nattering at me about it.
Otherwise, if you want something in gawk, CONTRIBUTE instead of
just wishing aloud.
phileo...@gmail.com
Apr 23, 2014, 4:07:15 PM4/23/14
to
I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I have a couple of things to say. First, TAWK is still unparalleled all these years later. I miss it greatly.
Second, I've been looking for a manual and would love it if anyone can provide me with a PDF of it. I still have the hard copy somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it recently.
Third, the problems with running TAWK on 64-bit Windows can mostly be worked around with some batch file trickery. I use a batch file that relies on changing to the TAWK software folder and qualifying filenames in arguments to make it work. It doesn't support every use case, but it does support the basic awkw.exe -f code.awk datafile1 datafile2 datafile3 ... sort of paradigm.
Fourth and finally, I corresponded with the TAWK author years ago about updating the source. I even offered to do the port and any work necessary for free to keep it up to date. I think I almost had him convinced at one point, but then he vanished completely and the email address has gone dead.
I'm looking into switching to GAWK, but there's still a bunch of stuff it doesn't do. I may look into writing some extensions. We'll see.
At any rate, I'd be happy to swap details with anyone who posts or writes me directly. Thanks in advance for any interest.
Second, I've been looking for a manual and would love it if anyone can provide me with a PDF of it. I still have the hard copy somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it recently.
Third, the problems with running TAWK on 64-bit Windows can mostly be worked around with some batch file trickery. I use a batch file that relies on changing to the TAWK software folder and qualifying filenames in arguments to make it work. It doesn't support every use case, but it does support the basic awkw.exe -f code.awk datafile1 datafile2 datafile3 ... sort of paradigm.
Fourth and finally, I corresponded with the TAWK author years ago about updating the source. I even offered to do the port and any work necessary for free to keep it up to date. I think I almost had him convinced at one point, but then he vanished completely and the email address has gone dead.
I'm looking into switching to GAWK, but there's still a bunch of stuff it doesn't do. I may look into writing some extensions. We'll see.
At any rate, I'd be happy to swap details with anyone who posts or writes me directly. Thanks in advance for any interest.
GCMan
Oct 16, 2015, 5:40:18 AM10/16/15
to
I guess I'm really late then! I have used Tawk for more than 20 years. Version 5 has worked fine on all versions of Windows through Windows7 64-bit. I haven't had any problems with it - it runs from the CMD line or under Thompson's sh.exe
Life would be difficult without it. I have over 200 Tawk programs, several of which I use every day. I once tried converting some of these to gawk, and managed, but it was not easy. I missed auto-sorting of arrays and true multi-dimensional arrays. I also haven't found a way to do screen I/O or Windows function calls in gawk. (In Tawk 5 you can declare these as "extern winapi" functions and just call them; define the structs as packed arrays).
Nonetheless, when I retire I plan to dump Windows, and then I will have to get by without Tawk.
Life would be difficult without it. I have over 200 Tawk programs, several of which I use every day. I once tried converting some of these to gawk, and managed, but it was not easy. I missed auto-sorting of arrays and true multi-dimensional arrays. I also haven't found a way to do screen I/O or Windows function calls in gawk. (In Tawk 5 you can declare these as "extern winapi" functions and just call them; define the structs as packed arrays).
Nonetheless, when I retire I plan to dump Windows, and then I will have to get by without Tawk.
Joe User
Oct 16, 2015, 11:54:17 AM10/16/15
to
crackerjack wrote:
> Hi - this may be a long shot...
>
> TAWK - the absolutely wonderful awk variant/compiler from
Thomson
> Automation (sadly, defunct) is no longer available as a
commercial
> product - however it still works a treat even on 64-bit Windows 7
> platform.
>
> I am fairly proficient with awk (gawk, mainly), and would see a
huge
> amount of value in using tawk and its enhance features to it's full
> extent. My problem is that I am unable to obtain a manual for
tawk 5.0
> which would unlock all the marvelous capabilities tawk holds.
>
> If there is anyone, anywhere in the world who has a manual
(hard or
> scanned copy) available - I would really like to hear from you. I am
> willing to pay a reasonable amount to obtain such...
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Lance - Melbourne, Australia.
Dude. Give it up. It's over.
> Hi - this may be a long shot...
>
> TAWK - the absolutely wonderful awk variant/compiler from
Thomson
> Automation (sadly, defunct) is no longer available as a
commercial
> product - however it still works a treat even on 64-bit Windows 7
> platform.
>
> I am fairly proficient with awk (gawk, mainly), and would see a
huge
> amount of value in using tawk and its enhance features to it's full
> extent. My problem is that I am unable to obtain a manual for
tawk 5.0
> which would unlock all the marvelous capabilities tawk holds.
>
> If there is anyone, anywhere in the world who has a manual
(hard or
> scanned copy) available - I would really like to hear from you. I am
> willing to pay a reasonable amount to obtain such...
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Lance - Melbourne, Australia.
If you need a certain function of TAWK, implement something
similar for gawk.
Gawk isn't going away any time soon.
Ed Morton
Oct 16, 2015, 12:22:07 PM10/16/15
to
On 10/16/2015 4:40 AM, GCMan wrote:
> I guess I'm really late then! I have used Tawk for more than 20 years. Version 5 has worked fine on all versions of Windows through Windows7 64-bit. I haven't had any problems with it - it runs from the CMD line or under Thompson's sh.exe
>
> Life would be difficult without it. I have over 200 Tawk programs, several of which I use every day. I once tried converting some of these to gawk, and managed, but it was not easy. I missed auto-sorting of arrays
gawk has those.
> I guess I'm really late then! I have used Tawk for more than 20 years. Version 5 has worked fine on all versions of Windows through Windows7 64-bit. I haven't had any problems with it - it runs from the CMD line or under Thompson's sh.exe
>
> Life would be difficult without it. I have over 200 Tawk programs, several of which I use every day. I once tried converting some of these to gawk, and managed, but it was not easy. I missed auto-sorting of arrays
and true multi-dimensional arrays.
gawk has those too.
I also haven't found a way to do screen I/O or Windows function calls in gawk.
sounds like you're a few gawk releases behind the times.
(In Tawk 5 you can declare these as "extern winapi" functions and just call
them; define the structs as packed arrays).
>
> Nonetheless, when I retire I plan to dump Windows, and then I will have to get by without Tawk.
>
Ed.
Kenny McCormack
Oct 16, 2015, 1:20:57 PM10/16/15
to
In article <mvr83f$jnu$1...@dont-email.me>,
feel threatened by here. Really, calm down, folks.
In general, GAWK has, in the last few years, just about (but by no means
completely) caught up to where TAWK was almost 20 years ago. That's
progress, of a sort...
>> Life would be difficult without it. I have over 200 Tawk programs, several of
>which I use every day. I once tried converting some of these to gawk, and
>managed, but it was not easy. I missed auto-sorting of arrays
>
>gawk has that.
Yeah, by almost 20 years after TAWK had it.
And, might I add, kicking and screaming all the way.
If I had a dime for every time I mentioned the lack of array sorting in
GAWK and was told that it was a stupid/unnecessary/a-whole-bunch-of-other-insults
idea and that it would never be implemented in GAWK, I'd be a rich(er) man.
Note that for many years, the only way (other than writing your own code)
to get array sorting in GAWK was via the (undocumented) WHINY_USERS
setting. *I* was (and am to this day) that whiny user.
>and true multi-dimensional arrays.
>
>gawk has those too.
Yeah, by almost 20 years after TAWK had it.
And, might I add, kicking and screaming all the way.
> I also haven't found a way to do screen I/O or Windows function calls in gawk.
>
>Idk what that means but you could check the current gawk documentation as it
>sounds like you're a few gawk releases behind the times.
>
> (In Tawk 5 you can declare these as "extern winapi" functions and just call
>them; define the structs as packed arrays).
Since you will never understand, I won't bother to explain.
But suffice to say that my "call_any" GAWK extension library goes some way
(but by no means anywhere nearly as far or as well as TAWK does) to
alleviating this problem.
The bottom line here is that TAWK leaves GAWK in the dust in so many ways
(and did so almost 20 years ago), but the fact remains that if you don't
already own it (as clearly do both I and the OP), you are left settling for
the world's second best AWK implementation. And that, clearly and with no
reservations, is GAWK.
P.S. Also note that because of platform limitations, the two are not even
really competitors in any realistic sense. I say this because of the
following facts:
1) GAWK is essentially unusable under DOS/Windows - because of the
broken command interpreter (CMD.EXE). [*]
2) TAWK is unavailable under any Unix flavor other than Solaris/Sparc.
So, when you get right down to it, the only platform where GAWK and TAWK
can be seen as competitors is Solaris running on Space - and who uses
either Solaris or Sparc anymore???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*] Yes, I know perfectly well that you can get around this by always
putting your script in a file, but to me, command line scripts are an
essential part of what AWK is all about. So, for me, GAWK is pretty much
unusable under CMD.EXE. Yes, I suppose that newer Windows thingies like
Powershell or whatever might also be better than CMD.EXE, but those things
are not widely used and are, again, outside of my consideration.
--
They say compassion is a virtue, but I don't have the time!
- David Byrne -
Ed Morton <morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/16/2015 4:40 AM, GCMan wrote:
>> I guess I'm really late then! I have used Tawk for more than 20 years. Version
>5 has worked fine on all versions of Windows through Windows7 64-bit. I haven't
>had any problems with it - it runs from the CMD line or under Thompson's sh.exe
Note to all you "Just get GAWK" screechers: Relax. There is nothing to
>On 10/16/2015 4:40 AM, GCMan wrote:
>> I guess I'm really late then! I have used Tawk for more than 20 years. Version
>5 has worked fine on all versions of Windows through Windows7 64-bit. I haven't
>had any problems with it - it runs from the CMD line or under Thompson's sh.exe
feel threatened by here. Really, calm down, folks.
In general, GAWK has, in the last few years, just about (but by no means
completely) caught up to where TAWK was almost 20 years ago. That's
progress, of a sort...
>> Life would be difficult without it. I have over 200 Tawk programs, several of
>which I use every day. I once tried converting some of these to gawk, and
>managed, but it was not easy. I missed auto-sorting of arrays
>
Yeah, by almost 20 years after TAWK had it.
And, might I add, kicking and screaming all the way.
If I had a dime for every time I mentioned the lack of array sorting in
GAWK and was told that it was a stupid/unnecessary/a-whole-bunch-of-other-insults
idea and that it would never be implemented in GAWK, I'd be a rich(er) man.
Note that for many years, the only way (other than writing your own code)
to get array sorting in GAWK was via the (undocumented) WHINY_USERS
setting. *I* was (and am to this day) that whiny user.
>and true multi-dimensional arrays.
>
>gawk has those too.
And, might I add, kicking and screaming all the way.
> I also haven't found a way to do screen I/O or Windows function calls in gawk.
>
>Idk what that means but you could check the current gawk documentation as it
>sounds like you're a few gawk releases behind the times.
>
> (In Tawk 5 you can declare these as "extern winapi" functions and just call
>them; define the structs as packed arrays).
But suffice to say that my "call_any" GAWK extension library goes some way
(but by no means anywhere nearly as far or as well as TAWK does) to
alleviating this problem.
The bottom line here is that TAWK leaves GAWK in the dust in so many ways
(and did so almost 20 years ago), but the fact remains that if you don't
already own it (as clearly do both I and the OP), you are left settling for
the world's second best AWK implementation. And that, clearly and with no
reservations, is GAWK.
P.S. Also note that because of platform limitations, the two are not even
really competitors in any realistic sense. I say this because of the
following facts:
1) GAWK is essentially unusable under DOS/Windows - because of the
broken command interpreter (CMD.EXE). [*]
2) TAWK is unavailable under any Unix flavor other than Solaris/Sparc.
So, when you get right down to it, the only platform where GAWK and TAWK
can be seen as competitors is Solaris running on Space - and who uses
either Solaris or Sparc anymore???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*] Yes, I know perfectly well that you can get around this by always
putting your script in a file, but to me, command line scripts are an
essential part of what AWK is all about. So, for me, GAWK is pretty much
unusable under CMD.EXE. Yes, I suppose that newer Windows thingies like
Powershell or whatever might also be better than CMD.EXE, but those things
are not widely used and are, again, outside of my consideration.
--
They say compassion is a virtue, but I don't have the time!
- David Byrne -
Ed Morton
Oct 16, 2015, 3:22:22 PM10/16/15
to
On 10/16/2015 12:20 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <mvr83f$jnu$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Ed Morton <morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2015 4:40 AM, GCMan wrote:
>>> I guess I'm really late then! I have used Tawk for more than 20 years. Version
>> 5 has worked fine on all versions of Windows through Windows7 64-bit. I haven't
>> had any problems with it - it runs from the CMD line or under Thompson's sh.exe
>
> Note to all you "Just get GAWK" screechers: Relax. There is nothing to
> feel threatened by here. Really, calm down, folks.
No one is screeching, no one feels threatened by tawk and no one cares what
> In article <mvr83f$jnu$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Ed Morton <morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2015 4:40 AM, GCMan wrote:
>>> I guess I'm really late then! I have used Tawk for more than 20 years. Version
>> 5 has worked fine on all versions of Windows through Windows7 64-bit. I haven't
>> had any problems with it - it runs from the CMD line or under Thompson's sh.exe
>
> Note to all you "Just get GAWK" screechers: Relax. There is nothing to
> feel threatened by here. Really, calm down, folks.
functionality tawk had 20 years before gawk. For at least the past 10-15 years
I've been hearing about it, gawk has had the 2 absolutely critical features that
are absent from tawk:
1) availability, and
2) support.
so whatever else tawk does/doesn't do compared to gawk is completely irrelevant.
Regards,
Ed.
Kaz Kylheku
Oct 16, 2015, 3:41:05 PM10/16/15
to
smirking. Consider that the C language also originated on Unix, and came to
serve as the world's most popular tool for generating vendor lock-in to all
sorts of platforms.
By the way, when I retire, I plan to get one of those hammer things I keep
hearing about. Until then, I'm playing out the rest of my productive carpentry
career by striking nail heads with chunks of concrete, and using my house
keys the odd time I need to pull one out.
Kenny McCormack
Oct 17, 2015, 7:31:57 AM10/17/15
to
In article <mvrile$vh1$1...@dont-email.me>,
Ed Morton <morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Gawk has had the 2 absolutely critical features that
For someone like you, who uses AWK the way you do, I think you have chosen
wisely.
--
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum...."
- Noam Chomsky, The Common Good -
Ed Morton <morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Gawk has had the 2 absolutely critical features that
>are absent from tawk:
>
>1) availability, and
>2) support.
>
>so whatever else tawk does/doesn't do compared to gawk is completely
>irrelevant to me.
>
>1) availability, and
>2) support.
>
>so whatever else tawk does/doesn't do compared to gawk is completely
For someone like you, who uses AWK the way you do, I think you have chosen
wisely.
--
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum...."
- Noam Chomsky, The Common Good -
Ed Morton
Oct 17, 2015, 9:37:00 AM10/17/15
to
On 10/17/2015 6:31 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <mvrile$vh1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Ed Morton <morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Gawk has had the 2 absolutely critical features that
>> are absent from tawk:
>>
>> 1) availability, and
>> 2) support.
>>
>> so whatever else tawk does/doesn't do compared to gawk is completely
>> irrelevant to me.
^ "to me" ^ - I never said that, don't add your own words and then post it as a
> In article <mvrile$vh1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Ed Morton <morto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Gawk has had the 2 absolutely critical features that
>> are absent from tawk:
>>
>> 1) availability, and
>> 2) support.
>>
>> so whatever else tawk does/doesn't do compared to gawk is completely
>> irrelevant to me.
quote from someone else.
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Feb 10, 2016, 2:50:12 PM2/10/16
to
I received the TAWK code base from Pat Thompson roughly four years ago. A friend and I have been enhancing it and are now up to version 6.6. If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only on Windows.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
emd...@gmail.com
Mar 29, 2016, 12:40:57 PM3/29/16
to
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 9:50:12 PM UTC+2, pcanagno...@gmail.com wrote:
> I received the TAWK code base from Pat Thompson roughly four years ago. A friend and I have been enhancing it and are now up to version 6.6. If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only on Windows.
>
> ~~ Paul
Haven't you thought of making it open source?
> I received the TAWK code base from Pat Thompson roughly four years ago. A friend and I have been enhancing it and are now up to version 6.6. If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only on Windows.
>
> ~~ Paul
(I searched through this discussion and haven't bumped into it...)
Regards,
endre (emddom)
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Apr 4, 2016, 7:07:23 PM4/4/16
to
It's up to Pat whether he wants to make it open source. I don't think he does at this time.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
Kenny McCormack
Apr 4, 2016, 7:12:39 PM4/4/16
to
In article <5b808716-9086-410b...@googlegroups.com>,
1) Did you use to work for Thompson Automation?
2) What would really be useful, at this point in time, is not an updated
Windows version (We already have a perfectly good Windows version), but
rather, one or both of the following:
a) A way for new customers to get licensed for the Windows version.
(I'm looking at you, Ed)
2) A Linux version (not open source, of course, but compiled for Linux).
The later, in particular, would be a game-changer.
--
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2) What would really be useful, at this point in time, is not an updated
Windows version (We already have a perfectly good Windows version), but
rather, one or both of the following:
a) A way for new customers to get licensed for the Windows version.
(I'm looking at you, Ed)
2) A Linux version (not open source, of course, but compiled for Linux).
The later, in particular, would be a game-changer.
--
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Apr 11, 2016, 7:58:22 PM4/11/16
to
I never worked for Thompson Automation.
It's up to Pat to figure out a licensing scheme. He has told me it's okay to send people the software, but there is no manual.
I'll leave the Linux version up to someone else. Unix ain't my thing.
~~ Paul
It's up to Pat to figure out a licensing scheme. He has told me it's okay to send people the software, but there is no manual.
I'll leave the Linux version up to someone else. Unix ain't my thing.
~~ Paul
Aharon Robbins
Apr 12, 2016, 1:20:50 PM4/12/16
to
In article <a339feb9-7dfa-4a43...@googlegroups.com>,
When you say "send people the software" do you mean binary, or source?
Kenny McCormack
Apr 12, 2016, 1:38:11 PM4/12/16
to
In article <nejaj9$o8g$1...@dont-email.me>,
TAWK is not and never has been open source.
(I would have gone on to say "and never will be", but one never knows...)
--
To most Christians, the Bible is like a software license. Nobody
actually reads it. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree."
- author unknown -
Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>In article <a339feb9-7dfa-4a43...@googlegroups.com>,
> <pcanagno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I never worked for Thompson Automation.
>>
>>It's up to Pat to figure out a licensing scheme. He has told me it's
>>okay to send people the software, but there is no manual.
>>
>>I'll leave the Linux version up to someone else. Unix ain't my thing.
>
>When you say "send people the software" do you mean binary, or source?
Windows binaries.
>In article <a339feb9-7dfa-4a43...@googlegroups.com>,
> <pcanagno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I never worked for Thompson Automation.
>>
>>It's up to Pat to figure out a licensing scheme. He has told me it's
>>okay to send people the software, but there is no manual.
>>
>>I'll leave the Linux version up to someone else. Unix ain't my thing.
>
>When you say "send people the software" do you mean binary, or source?
TAWK is not and never has been open source.
(I would have gone on to say "and never will be", but one never knows...)
--
To most Christians, the Bible is like a software license. Nobody
actually reads it. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree."
- author unknown -
weak...@gmail.com
Mar 9, 2017, 6:57:35 PM3/9/17
to
Paul:
I was a tawk user for many years and loved the language. How can a get a copy of your newer "updated" version? Do you need some kind of confirmation from fe that I was a tawk customer?
Weaklynx@GEE Mail dot com.
I was a tawk user for many years and loved the language. How can a get a copy of your newer "updated" version? Do you need some kind of confirmation from fe that I was a tawk customer?
Weaklynx@GEE Mail dot com.
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Mar 12, 2017, 10:07:45 AM3/12/17
to
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-4, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> When you say "send people the software" do you mean binary, or source?
Binaries.
> When you say "send people the software" do you mean binary, or source?
~~ Paul
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Mar 12, 2017, 10:08:07 AM3/12/17
to
On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 6:57:35 PM UTC-5, weak...@gmail.com wrote:
> Paul:
>
> I was a tawk user for many years and loved the language. How can a get a copy of your newer "updated" version? Do you need some kind of confirmation from fe that I was a tawk customer?
I've emailed it to you.
> Paul:
>
> I was a tawk user for many years and loved the language. How can a get a copy of your newer "updated" version? Do you need some kind of confirmation from fe that I was a tawk customer?
~~ Paul
weak...@gmail.com
Mar 12, 2017, 3:32:46 PM3/12/17
to
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Mar 12, 2017, 4:14:41 PM3/12/17
to
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:32:46 PM UTC-4, weak...@gmail.com wrote:
> Paul: I did not see anything in my email. Perhaps there's a size limit on the attachments? The first part of my address is weaklynx. Was that the address you used?
I think so. I'll try again. It's only 600K.
> Paul: I did not see anything in my email. Perhaps there's a size limit on the attachments? The first part of my address is weaklynx. Was that the address you used?
~~ Paul
scott2a...@gmail.com
Aug 3, 2017, 1:08:43 PM8/3/17
to
You offered in a forum a while back to send updated Tawk out. Hoping that is still an option.
Thanks Much!
Scott2a...@gmail.com
Scott
adam...@gmail.com
Aug 17, 2017, 2:45:26 PM8/17/17
to
If possible, I would like a copy as well.
adam...@gmail.com
Aug 17, 2017, 2:47:59 PM8/17/17
to
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 2:45:26 PM UTC-4, adam...@gmail.com wrote:
> If possible, I would like a copy as well.
Sorry for got my email address: adam...@gmail.com
> If possible, I would like a copy as well.
ric...@gmail.com
Jul 31, 2018, 3:48:33 PM7/31/18
to
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 1:50:12 PM UTC-6, pcanagno...@gmail.com wrote:
If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only on Windows.
>
> ~~ Paul
I was a customer for years and worked with Pat on a couple of environment vars suggestions. I recently used Pat's "support" email to beg a new release especially since XML is so widely used in info-exchange. Never expected to get a reply from Pat, and didn't, but it hasn't stopped me from looking for something similar.
If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only on Windows.
>
> ~~ Paul
Ran across this group discussion and was surprised (very pleasantly so) that TAWK is being maintained and is available. Too bad I lost the manual years ago (big, heavy white thing with stapled spine) but I can certainly write scripts to dig out the details and self-document what I need.
Any chance this offer is still open? Binary copy, that is, delivered by email?
PAX
Ric Naff
Corinth, TX
Kaz Kylheku
Aug 1, 2018, 1:13:53 AM8/1/18
to
On 2018-07-31, ric...@gmail.com <ric...@gmail.com> wrote:
> manual years ago (big, heavy white thing with stapled spine)
Are we still talking about documentation, or Ed?
> manual years ago (big, heavy white thing with stapled spine)
ric...@gmail.com
Aug 1, 2018, 7:20:32 AM8/1/18
to
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:13:53 AM UTC-5, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
...
I was talking about
1. Hopes that TAWK will be commercially available again, someday. It's tremendous tool. With the widely adopted use of XML, text files are again a big thing and there's a renewed interest in awk in general.
2. That I understood there was a privately maintained, "updated" TAWK binary available to those who used to own TAWK.
3. That this updated binary is just that; a binary but no documentation.
4. A mention as to the documentation I used to have almost 15 years ago and more as a credibility statement that yes, I did used to own TASK compiler and paid for it. Actually, I paid renewal/upgrade fees several times over several years.
5. Expressing a confidence that even without printed documentation, it's possible to tease out the built-in vars, etc. With enough experience with [g]awk and having used TAWK for so many years, a person ought to be able to self-document most of the tool if only they had a copy to use on Win-10.
I directed my reply to Paul, who indicates he is in touch (more or less) with Pat Thompson and has the source for private use, so he can distribute the binary (and ONLY the binary) to those who used to own TAWK in the 90s and 00s.
Cheers,
Ric Naff
...
> Are we still talking about documentation, or Ed?
Kaz,
I was talking about
1. Hopes that TAWK will be commercially available again, someday. It's tremendous tool. With the widely adopted use of XML, text files are again a big thing and there's a renewed interest in awk in general.
2. That I understood there was a privately maintained, "updated" TAWK binary available to those who used to own TAWK.
3. That this updated binary is just that; a binary but no documentation.
4. A mention as to the documentation I used to have almost 15 years ago and more as a credibility statement that yes, I did used to own TASK compiler and paid for it. Actually, I paid renewal/upgrade fees several times over several years.
5. Expressing a confidence that even without printed documentation, it's possible to tease out the built-in vars, etc. With enough experience with [g]awk and having used TAWK for so many years, a person ought to be able to self-document most of the tool if only they had a copy to use on Win-10.
I directed my reply to Paul, who indicates he is in touch (more or less) with Pat Thompson and has the source for private use, so he can distribute the binary (and ONLY the binary) to those who used to own TAWK in the 90s and 00s.
Cheers,
Ric Naff
Kenny McCormack
Aug 1, 2018, 7:43:25 AM8/1/18
to
In article <201807312...@kylheku.com>,
I assume this is a jab at the frequent poster who reminds me of a talking horse.
But I think it is far too subtle for this NG.
As evidenced by the naff followup posting.
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/GodDelusion
But I think it is far too subtle for this NG.
As evidenced by the naff followup posting.
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/GodDelusion
ric...@gmail.com
Aug 1, 2018, 8:05:57 AM8/1/18
to
> I assume this is a jab at the frequent poster who reminds me of a talking horse.
>
> But I think it is far too subtle for this NG.
>
> As evidenced by the naff followup posting.
>
Some guy named Kaz then questions if I'm asking about the docs. I replied, no, I'm not, I'm asking about the binary and I don't think I will need the docs, I can manage without.
Now I seem to be caught in some sort of troll-natter for asking a polite question in an on-topic thread to someone who posted they can provide something.
Not sure if Kaz or you (or this guy named Ed) has decided that I'm here to stir up trouble. Apparently someone has done so. Why an on-topic folow-up to an on-topic post equates to me asking about something or someone that I didn't ask about, and now I might be being compared to a talking horse, is beyond me.
Since you also refer to "the naff followup," I presume you speak British English have have assumed, without bothering to google or even ask question 1, that my surname is "not so subtle."
Well, it happens to be my name. It's Swiss in origin and it is what it is. Google me and you'll find me.
Implied slurs against someone based on their name is incredibly childish...
So I suppose, because of my name, I am not eligible to be considered for Paul's generous offer?
Ric Naff (yes, that IS my real name).
Janis Papanagnou
Aug 1, 2018, 12:53:08 PM8/1/18
to
On 01.08.2018 14:05, ric...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Now I seem to be caught in some sort of troll-natter for asking a polite
> question in an on-topic thread to someone who posted they can provide
> something.
Don't worry, just ignore that sort of posts. It's just the Usenet typical
>
> Now I seem to be caught in some sort of troll-natter for asking a polite
> question in an on-topic thread to someone who posted they can provide
> something.
irrelevant noise in sociopathic or heated up contexts. There's absolutely
no issue with you or with your post. You're welcome here, and I hope some
TAWK authority will provive a satisfactory answer to your request.
Probably not comparable with TAWK, but anyway, you may want to try out the
GNU version of awk - though you probably know it already and might not find
its functionality satisfactory, but (if compared to standard awk) it has a
lot of interesting features and is comparably fast. Just for an [OT] option
you may want to consider.
I'm not quite sure about your XML statement in your original post: "to beg
a new release especially since XML is so widely used in info-exchange." -
if XML processing is a requirement (and you don't want to use XML tools)
there's support for it in GNU awk.
Janis
Markus Gnam
Aug 3, 2018, 2:57:15 PM8/3/18
to
Kenny McCormack
Aug 4, 2018, 11:32:02 AM8/4/18
to
In article <a73f1134-9e54-48f3...@googlegroups.com>,
comprehend and appreciate the humor in it.
I will say no more about this - other than that all of your assumptions, as
evidenced in your reply, are wrong. No big deal. Just nothing to get so
excited about. We all make mistakes. Time to move along. As the man in
the movie says, Lighten up, Francis!
That all said, a few comments about TAWK. First, you won't find a bigger
cheerleader for TAWK than me on this newsgroup (or, probably, anywhere
else). The only problem is that they had it licked - they had solved the
problem - in 1996. Pretty much, nowhere to go after that. Sadly, the hard
and fast rule in software is that if you don't keep changing things, people
will lose interest; they will say that it is no longer "supported". Even
more sadly, this rule applies such that if you reach a point where it isn't
possible to make things better, you have to start making them worse. MS
knows this well. Any movement is better than no movement. Sadly, the
makers of TAWK didn't heed this fact.
Now, as to this "Paul" guy. I have not bothered to investigate his
supposed new version. Frankly, I don't see the point. This isn't intended
as a criticism of "Paul" or what he is trying to do, nor is it seeking any
sort of assistance or advice (or further debate) in the matter. It is a
plain statement of fact. For one thing, I don't see what the point is to
having an enhanced release (with new features) without any documentation of
those new features. Seems particularly pointless.
It is also pointless (IMHO) to have a Windows only release. I do very
little work on DOS/Windows these days, so I rarely use TAWK anymore in my
day-to-day life. I'd be interested in a Linux version - that would, in
fact, be pretty useful to me. Little known fact: TAWK was actually
originally developed on Unix (Solaris) - and then ported to DOS/Windows.
Ported very well, I must add.
Finally, a few notes about GAWK (as an alternative):
1) As I've posted several times in the past, GAWK isn't ideal on the
DOS/Windows platform. It does work, but the inability to do
command line programs, combined with the need to emulate some of
the more Unix-y aspects of the program, make for a less than ideal
user experience. TAWK is much more useable on the DOS/Windows
platform.
2) GAWK (on Linux/Unix) has been working hard lately to catch up to TAWK
and is now, in 2018, pretty much there (which is a good thing).
3) You mention XML several times in your posts. This is one area where
(so I've heard) GAWK does excel. This is because lots of explicit
effort was put into developing a GAWK "extension library" to
support XML parsing. You should definitely look into it. This is
one area where TAWK does come up short; AFAIK, this is no such
library available for TAWK.
Note: I say "so I've heard" because I've never actually used the
XML extensions in GAWK. Never had the need.
Anyway, that's my take on all this. Hope it helps.
--
No puppet.
No puppet.
You're a puppet.
<ric...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I assume this is a jab at the frequent poster who reminds me of a
>> talking horse.
>>
>> But I think it is far too subtle for this NG.
>>
>> As evidenced by the naff followup posting.
>>
>
>
>Sorry, Kenny, but I'm not sure who you're directing you comments to.
>If me, why? I stumbled across a group with a posting from Paul Canagno
>offering the "updated" binary for TAWK for those who used to own it.
Actually, my previous post was a reply to Kaz - who, I think, was able to
>
>> I assume this is a jab at the frequent poster who reminds me of a
>> talking horse.
>>
>> But I think it is far too subtle for this NG.
>>
>> As evidenced by the naff followup posting.
>>
>
>
>Sorry, Kenny, but I'm not sure who you're directing you comments to.
>If me, why? I stumbled across a group with a posting from Paul Canagno
>offering the "updated" binary for TAWK for those who used to own it.
comprehend and appreciate the humor in it.
I will say no more about this - other than that all of your assumptions, as
evidenced in your reply, are wrong. No big deal. Just nothing to get so
excited about. We all make mistakes. Time to move along. As the man in
the movie says, Lighten up, Francis!
That all said, a few comments about TAWK. First, you won't find a bigger
cheerleader for TAWK than me on this newsgroup (or, probably, anywhere
else). The only problem is that they had it licked - they had solved the
problem - in 1996. Pretty much, nowhere to go after that. Sadly, the hard
and fast rule in software is that if you don't keep changing things, people
will lose interest; they will say that it is no longer "supported". Even
more sadly, this rule applies such that if you reach a point where it isn't
possible to make things better, you have to start making them worse. MS
knows this well. Any movement is better than no movement. Sadly, the
makers of TAWK didn't heed this fact.
Now, as to this "Paul" guy. I have not bothered to investigate his
supposed new version. Frankly, I don't see the point. This isn't intended
as a criticism of "Paul" or what he is trying to do, nor is it seeking any
sort of assistance or advice (or further debate) in the matter. It is a
plain statement of fact. For one thing, I don't see what the point is to
having an enhanced release (with new features) without any documentation of
those new features. Seems particularly pointless.
It is also pointless (IMHO) to have a Windows only release. I do very
little work on DOS/Windows these days, so I rarely use TAWK anymore in my
day-to-day life. I'd be interested in a Linux version - that would, in
fact, be pretty useful to me. Little known fact: TAWK was actually
originally developed on Unix (Solaris) - and then ported to DOS/Windows.
Ported very well, I must add.
Finally, a few notes about GAWK (as an alternative):
1) As I've posted several times in the past, GAWK isn't ideal on the
DOS/Windows platform. It does work, but the inability to do
command line programs, combined with the need to emulate some of
the more Unix-y aspects of the program, make for a less than ideal
user experience. TAWK is much more useable on the DOS/Windows
platform.
2) GAWK (on Linux/Unix) has been working hard lately to catch up to TAWK
and is now, in 2018, pretty much there (which is a good thing).
3) You mention XML several times in your posts. This is one area where
(so I've heard) GAWK does excel. This is because lots of explicit
effort was put into developing a GAWK "extension library" to
support XML parsing. You should definitely look into it. This is
one area where TAWK does come up short; AFAIK, this is no such
library available for TAWK.
Note: I say "so I've heard" because I've never actually used the
XML extensions in GAWK. Never had the need.
Anyway, that's my take on all this. Hope it helps.
--
No puppet.
No puppet.
You're a puppet.
Markus Gnam
Aug 4, 2018, 4:32:55 PM8/4/18
to
> Now, as to this "Paul" guy. I have not bothered to investigate his
> supposed new version. Frankly, I don't see the point. This isn't intended
> as a criticism of "Paul" or what he is trying to do, nor is it seeking any
> sort of assistance or advice (or further debate) in the matter. It is a
> plain statement of fact. For one thing, I don't see what the point is to
> having an enhanced release (with new features) without any documentation of
> those new features. Seems particularly pointless.
>
Just one hint: The new features are documented within "TAWK6-release-notes.txt"
> supposed new version. Frankly, I don't see the point. This isn't intended
> as a criticism of "Paul" or what he is trying to do, nor is it seeking any
> sort of assistance or advice (or further debate) in the matter. It is a
> plain statement of fact. For one thing, I don't see what the point is to
> having an enhanced release (with new features) without any documentation of
> those new features. Seems particularly pointless.
>
shipped with TAWK version 6. You'll find them if you search comp.lang.awk for:
"Release Notes for Thompson AWK Version 6.4". BTW, the current version is 6.7.
There is no XML library available but there are quite a lot of improvements.
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Aug 4, 2018, 6:43:59 PM8/4/18
to
Greetings, everyone.
I am happy to give anyone the latest version of TAWK, v6.7. Just send me an email and I will invite you to the Dropbox folder that has the files. It includes a pdf with a bad copy of the v5 manual.
I'm hoping Pat will give me the Word file for the manual so I can make a good pdf of it.
~~ Paul
I am happy to give anyone the latest version of TAWK, v6.7. Just send me an email and I will invite you to the Dropbox folder that has the files. It includes a pdf with a bad copy of the v5 manual.
I'm hoping Pat will give me the Word file for the manual so I can make a good pdf of it.
~~ Paul
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Aug 5, 2018, 2:27:33 PM8/5/18
to
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 11:32:02 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Now, as to this "Paul" guy. I have not bothered to investigate his
> supposed new version. Frankly, I don't see the point. This isn't intended
> as a criticism of "Paul" or what he is trying to do, nor is it seeking any
> sort of assistance or advice (or further debate) in the matter. It is a
> plain statement of fact. For one thing, I don't see what the point is to
> having an enhanced release (with new features) without any documentation of
> those new features. Seems particularly pointless.
No offense taken. I'm not sure where you got the idea that there is no documentation of the new features. They are fully documented in the version 6 release notes.
> Now, as to this "Paul" guy. I have not bothered to investigate his
> supposed new version. Frankly, I don't see the point. This isn't intended
> as a criticism of "Paul" or what he is trying to do, nor is it seeking any
> sort of assistance or advice (or further debate) in the matter. It is a
> plain statement of fact. For one thing, I don't see what the point is to
> having an enhanced release (with new features) without any documentation of
> those new features. Seems particularly pointless.
You may be thinking of the original manual. My Dropbox folder includes a readable but not very pleasant pdf of the manual. I'm hoping to get the Word file from Pat so I can create a good pdf.
~~ Paul
Kenny McCormack
Aug 5, 2018, 6:03:20 PM8/5/18
to
In article <42da628c-c3e8-4bfc...@googlegroups.com>,
<pcanagno...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
this.
I just know that the OP was looking for the documentation (in, presumably,
some useful form). I've also had, over the years, various other people ask
me if there was some way to get hold of a manual.
And note that I am phrasing it this way because I think what people really
want is an actual ("dead trees") physical, touchable, manual. Not a Word
or PDF or whatever file...
Anyway, as I've tried to make clear, I don't care one way or the other.
I don't have a dog in this race.
P.S. I am, though I hate to admit it, curious as to what you mean by "not
very pleasant"...
P.P.S. I wonder if it would be possible to use one of these new-fangled
"3D printing" things to create an actual ("dead trees") physical,
touchable, manual. Wouldn't that be cute?
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/CLCtopics
<pcanagno...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>I'm not sure where you got the idea that there is no documentation of
>the new features. They are fully documented in the version 6 release
>notes.
>
>You may be thinking of the original manual. My Dropbox folder includes
>a readable but not very pleasant pdf of the manual. I'm hoping to get
>the Word file from Pat so I can create a good pdf.
I really don't know. As I say, I haven't checked or investigated any of
>the new features. They are fully documented in the version 6 release
>notes.
>
>You may be thinking of the original manual. My Dropbox folder includes
>a readable but not very pleasant pdf of the manual. I'm hoping to get
>the Word file from Pat so I can create a good pdf.
this.
I just know that the OP was looking for the documentation (in, presumably,
some useful form). I've also had, over the years, various other people ask
me if there was some way to get hold of a manual.
And note that I am phrasing it this way because I think what people really
want is an actual ("dead trees") physical, touchable, manual. Not a Word
or PDF or whatever file...
Anyway, as I've tried to make clear, I don't care one way or the other.
I don't have a dog in this race.
P.S. I am, though I hate to admit it, curious as to what you mean by "not
very pleasant"...
P.P.S. I wonder if it would be possible to use one of these new-fangled
"3D printing" things to create an actual ("dead trees") physical,
touchable, manual. Wouldn't that be cute?
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Aug 5, 2018, 7:38:48 PM8/5/18
to
On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 6:03:20 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> And note that I am phrasing it this way because I think what people really
> want is an actual ("dead trees") physical, touchable, manual. Not a Word
> or PDF or whatever file...
They can simply print the pdf file. But it is ugly.
> And note that I am phrasing it this way because I think what people really
> want is an actual ("dead trees") physical, touchable, manual. Not a Word
> or PDF or whatever file...
> P.S. I am, though I hate to admit it, curious as to what you mean by "not
> very pleasant"...
~~ Paul
Anton Treuenfels
Aug 5, 2018, 11:04:36 PM8/5/18
to
same "nothing left to improve" fate as TAWK.
- Anton Treuenfels
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Aug 6, 2018, 4:39:26 PM8/6/18
to
On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 11:04:36 PM UTC-4, Anton Treuenfels wrote:
> Hmm. It sounds as if GAWK should slow down, or they will soon suffer the
> same "nothing left to improve" fate as TAWK.
I think we improved the semantics of AWK with our -ALTSEMANTICS feature in TAWK v6. Of course, I'm sure other will review the changes and conclude that we are lunatics. Here are the changes.
> Hmm. It sounds as if GAWK should slow down, or they will soon suffer the
> same "nothing left to improve" fate as TAWK.
Alternate Semantics
-------------------
TAWK version 6 includes the capability to alter the semantics of certain
fundamental AWK features. For compatibility reasons, these alternate
semantics must be enabled with the -ALTSEMANTICS option on the awkw or awkcw
commands.
Fetching nonexistent keys. When a table fetch is performed using a key that
does not exist in the table, the key is added to the table with a value of
nil and the nil is returned. Under alternate semantics, nil is returned but
the key is not added to the table. Fetches of nonexistent keys do not alter
the table.
Arithmetic on nil. Nil is converted to 0 when used as an operand of a
numeric operator. Under alternate semantics, a warning message is issued
when this conversion is performed.
Comparison to nil. The equal (==) and not equal (!=) operators can be used
to compare integers, floats, strings, and nil. Comparing these scalars to a
table results in a run-time error. Under alternate semantics, these
operators may be used to compare scalars to tables. In other words, any data
types may be compared. A table is never equal to another value except for
the same table. The primary point of this change is to allow any value to be
checked for nil without causing run-time errors.
Promotion of arguments to tables. AWK scans defined functions to determine
whether any parameters are treated as tables (e.g., indexed with a
subscript). If so, it arranges for the corresponding arguments to be
promoted to empty tables before the function is called. This "feature" was
included in the original specification of AWK because it supported only call
by value, not call by reference. Because TAWK supports call by reference,
this feature is unnecessary. Under alternate semantics, arguments are never
promoted to tables regardless of how the corresponding parameters are used
in the functions. Of course, this does not prevent you from assigning a
table to a parameter passed by reference, thus replacing the argument value
with the table.
typeof() external data. When typeof() is called on a command line argument
(ARGV) or on data read from an external source such as a file or socket, the
string is checked to see if it matches the syntax of an integer or float. If
so, that numeric type is returned instead of "string". Under alternate
semantics, this feature is disabled and "string" is always returned.
Kenny McCormack
Aug 6, 2018, 4:52:55 PM8/6/18
to
In article <3c4f1d97-e002-4f9d...@googlegroups.com>,
(the subject of Anton's post)?
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Infallibility
<pcanagno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 11:04:36 PM UTC-4, Anton Treuenfels wrote:
>> Hmm. It sounds as if GAWK should slow down, or they will soon suffer the
>> same "nothing left to improve" fate as TAWK.
>
>I think we improved the semantics of AWK with our -ALTSEMANTICS feature
>in TAWK v6. Of course, I'm sure other will review the changes and
>conclude that we are lunatics. Here are the changes.
What does any of that have to do with the future path for *GAWK* development
>On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 11:04:36 PM UTC-4, Anton Treuenfels wrote:
>> Hmm. It sounds as if GAWK should slow down, or they will soon suffer the
>> same "nothing left to improve" fate as TAWK.
>
>I think we improved the semantics of AWK with our -ALTSEMANTICS feature
>in TAWK v6. Of course, I'm sure other will review the changes and
>conclude that we are lunatics. Here are the changes.
(the subject of Anton's post)?
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
pcanagno...@gmail.com
Aug 6, 2018, 5:01:45 PM8/6/18
to
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 4:52:55 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> What does any of that have to do with the future path for *GAWK* development
> (the subject of Anton's post)?
I just posted it for interest.
> What does any of that have to do with the future path for *GAWK* development
> (the subject of Anton's post)?
~~ Paul
scott2a...@gmail.com
Oct 13, 2018, 5:07:47 PM10/13/18
to
Sorry to be stupid, how do I get your email so I can have you send tawk to me. I only see a partial email address.
Thanks
Thanks
dakine....@gmail.com
May 11, 2020, 1:23:50 PM5/11/20
to
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 11:50:12 AM UTC-8, pcanagno...@gmail.com wrote:
> I received the TAWK code base from Pat Thompson roughly four years ago. A friend and I have been enhancing it and are now up to version 6.6. If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only on Windows.
>
> ~~ Paul
I have been a TAWK user for years, and was just plunking around when I found this message group. If possible, please send me the most recent version of TAWK 6, and if you have a mailing list, please add my contact information. Thank you.
> I received the TAWK code base from Pat Thompson roughly four years ago. A friend and I have been enhancing it and are now up to version 6.6. If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only on Windows.
>
> ~~ Paul
I have been a TAWK user for years, and was just plunking around when I found this message group. If possible, please send me the most recent version of TAWK 6, and if you have a mailing list, please add my contact information. Thank you.
jimwe...@gmail.com
Dec 29, 2020, 4:11:15 PM12/29/20
to
Thanks
Jim
Paul Anagnostopoulos
Dec 29, 2020, 4:25:15 PM12/29/20
to
Thanks! I now have a good scan, so I do not need a hardcopy.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
manch...@gmail.com
Feb 2, 2021, 3:17:17 PM2/2/21
to
Le vendredi 19 août 2011 01:33:31 UTC+2, crackerjack a écrit :
> Hi - this may be a long shot...
>
> TAWK - the absolutely wonderful awk variant/compiler from Thomson
> Automation (sadly, defunct) is no longer available as a commercial
> product - however it still works a treat even on 64-bit Windows 7
> platform.
>
> I am fairly proficient with awk (gawk, mainly), and would see a huge
> amount of value in using tawk and its enhance features to it's full
> extent. My problem is that I am unable to obtain a manual for tawk 5.0
> which would unlock all the marvelous capabilities tawk holds.
>
> If there is anyone, anywhere in the world who has a manual (hard or
> scanned copy) available - I would really like to hear from you. I am
> willing to pay a reasonable amount to obtain such...
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Lance - Melbourne, Australia.
Hi-
which is the last version of TAWK ? --> 6.7 ?
thx
> Hi - this may be a long shot...
>
> TAWK - the absolutely wonderful awk variant/compiler from Thomson
> Automation (sadly, defunct) is no longer available as a commercial
> product - however it still works a treat even on 64-bit Windows 7
> platform.
>
> I am fairly proficient with awk (gawk, mainly), and would see a huge
> amount of value in using tawk and its enhance features to it's full
> extent. My problem is that I am unable to obtain a manual for tawk 5.0
> which would unlock all the marvelous capabilities tawk holds.
>
> If there is anyone, anywhere in the world who has a manual (hard or
> scanned copy) available - I would really like to hear from you. I am
> willing to pay a reasonable amount to obtain such...
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Lance - Melbourne, Australia.
Hi-
which is the last version of TAWK ? --> 6.7 ?
thx
Paul Anagnostopoulos
Feb 2, 2021, 4:57:07 PM2/2/21
to
Do you need a copy of the manual?
~~ Paul
Jeff Paranich
Mar 25, 2021, 10:23:33 AM3/25/21
to
Ed Morton
Mar 25, 2021, 10:33:34 AM3/25/21
to
thing we need is the corpse of one being resurrected. If you have time
to invest in improving "awk" in general then talk to the gawk guys to
see what you can do to help and improve gawk to include whatever
functionality you think gawk is missing that tawk provided.
Ed.
Jeff Paranich
Mar 25, 2021, 11:07:09 AM3/25/21
to
Kenny McCormack
Mar 25, 2021, 11:14:16 AM3/25/21
to
In article <897158a1-7035-4366...@googlegroups.com>,
...
really no comparison. I think a lot of TAWK's features could not be
implemented in GAWK without breaking compatibility.
Incidentally, and for what it is worth, I actually am not interested in
these new versions of TAWK that Paul, et al, are pushing. Nothing against
it or them, mind you, but the version I have works fine and I'm not
interested in non-branded downloads (if you see what I mean...)
I'd love to see Pat T. himself come out of hiding and give it all his stamp
of approval, but, of course, I'm not holding my breath...
--
The key difference between faith and science is that in science, evidence that
doesn't fit the theory tends to weaken the theory (that is, make it less likely to
be believed), whereas in faith, contrary evidence just makes faith stronger (on
the assumption that Satan is testing you - trying to make you abandon your faith).
...
>> s/amazing/horrifying/. We already have too many awk versiants, the last
>> thing we need is the corpse of one being resurrected. If you have time
>> to invest in improving "awk" in general then talk to the gawk guys to
>> see what you can do to help and improve gawk to include whatever
>> functionality you think gawk is missing that tawk provided.
TAWK beats GAWK on performance and features by so many leagues that there's
>> thing we need is the corpse of one being resurrected. If you have time
>> to invest in improving "awk" in general then talk to the gawk guys to
>> see what you can do to help and improve gawk to include whatever
>> functionality you think gawk is missing that tawk provided.
really no comparison. I think a lot of TAWK's features could not be
implemented in GAWK without breaking compatibility.
Incidentally, and for what it is worth, I actually am not interested in
these new versions of TAWK that Paul, et al, are pushing. Nothing against
it or them, mind you, but the version I have works fine and I'm not
interested in non-branded downloads (if you see what I mean...)
I'd love to see Pat T. himself come out of hiding and give it all his stamp
of approval, but, of course, I'm not holding my breath...
--
The key difference between faith and science is that in science, evidence that
doesn't fit the theory tends to weaken the theory (that is, make it less likely to
be believed), whereas in faith, contrary evidence just makes faith stronger (on
the assumption that Satan is testing you - trying to make you abandon your faith).
Ed Morton
Mar 25, 2021, 11:26:33 AM3/25/21
to
oawk, nawk, /usr/xpg[46]/bin/awk, original mawk, mawk 2.0, BWK awk, BSD
awk, BusyBox awk, gawk, and others. It's ridiculous at this point how
many awk variants there are. If someone really wanted to help the awk
community then they'd volunteer to help improve the most popular,
well-documented, and well-supported awk, gawk, rather than re-introduce
yet another variant, tawk, to the pile.
Ed.
Paul Anagnostopoulos
Mar 25, 2021, 11:43:03 AM3/25/21
to
> s/amazing/horrifying/. We already have too many awk versiants, the last
> thing we need is the corpse of one being resurrected. If you have time
> to invest in improving "awk" in general then talk to the gawk guys to
> see what you can do to help and improve gawk to include whatever
> functionality you think gawk is missing that tawk provided.
~~ Paul
Paul Anagnostopoulos
Mar 25, 2021, 11:45:29 AM3/25/21
to
On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 11:14:16 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Incidentally, and for what it is worth, I actually am not interested in
> these new versions of TAWK that Paul, et al, are pushing. Nothing against
> it or them, mind you, but the version I have works fine and I'm not
> interested in non-branded downloads (if you see what I mean...)
>
> I'd love to see Pat T. himself come out of hiding and give it all his stamp
> of approval, but, of course, I'm not holding my breath...
>
> --
> The key difference between faith and science is that in science, evidence that
> doesn't fit the theory tends to weaken the theory (that is, make it less likely to
> be believed), whereas in faith, contrary evidence just makes faith stronger (on
> the assumption that Satan is testing you - trying to make you abandon your faith).
The only stamp of approval you'll get from Pat is that he gave me the TAWK code base. He knows that a friend and I are working on new versions of TAWK. One reason you might want to use version 6.7 is that it is much faster than the last version 5.
> Incidentally, and for what it is worth, I actually am not interested in
> these new versions of TAWK that Paul, et al, are pushing. Nothing against
> it or them, mind you, but the version I have works fine and I'm not
> interested in non-branded downloads (if you see what I mean...)
>
> I'd love to see Pat T. himself come out of hiding and give it all his stamp
> of approval, but, of course, I'm not holding my breath...
>
> --
> The key difference between faith and science is that in science, evidence that
> doesn't fit the theory tends to weaken the theory (that is, make it less likely to
> be believed), whereas in faith, contrary evidence just makes faith stronger (on
> the assumption that Satan is testing you - trying to make you abandon your faith).
~~ Paul
Kenny McCormack
Mar 25, 2021, 12:53:49 PM3/25/21
to
In article <ed3d9ffb-24d9-4cd2...@googlegroups.com>,
Paul Anagnostopoulos <pcanagno...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
I'm sure it is all good.
I'm just stating for the record, speaking as a long-time TAWK booster (and
long time user) that I, personally, have no need for any new versions (on
Windows; but see below).
(All of this on the off-chance that anyone actually cares what I think...)
P.S. If I *were* going to lobby for anything, I would say that what I
would *like* to see is a Linux version of TAWK. I really don't do
Windows anymore, and, again, to the extent that I think any of this
matters at all, the one thing that does bother me is the lack of a truly
fantastic and wonderful AWK implementation on Linux (or, alternatively,
I could have said "on a non-Windows platform).
Paul Anagnostopoulos <pcanagno...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>The only stamp of approval you'll get from Pat is that he gave me
>the TAWK code base. He knows that a friend and I are working on new
>versions of TAWK. One reason you might want to use version 6.7 is that
>it is much faster than the last version 5.
Understand me clearly: I am in no way denigrating your efforts.
>the TAWK code base. He knows that a friend and I are working on new
>versions of TAWK. One reason you might want to use version 6.7 is that
>it is much faster than the last version 5.
I'm sure it is all good.
I'm just stating for the record, speaking as a long-time TAWK booster (and
long time user) that I, personally, have no need for any new versions (on
Windows; but see below).
(All of this on the off-chance that anyone actually cares what I think...)
P.S. If I *were* going to lobby for anything, I would say that what I
would *like* to see is a Linux version of TAWK. I really don't do
Windows anymore, and, again, to the extent that I think any of this
matters at all, the one thing that does bother me is the lack of a truly
fantastic and wonderful AWK implementation on Linux (or, alternatively,
I could have said "on a non-Windows platform).
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/EternalFlame
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
Dirk Jan van der Wijden
May 30, 2021, 8:41:14 AM5/30/21
to
0 new messages