On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 07:10:09PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote: > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net>wrote: > > > should i say "the current ot awk source"? it's certainly not > > designed for plan 9. > > > > Regardless you are right that it is clearly not worth porting to 'native' > Plan 9 libraries or APIs; what, if anything, would be the benefit of such > an effort? > > - Dan C.
Not worth *what*? Someone else's time? The only reason we're talking about a bug in print(2) is because of this waste-of-time native awk work. This isn't some kind of zero-sum game where the opportunity cost of someone making a native awk is depriving us of valuable other software. Pretty much anything anyone writes for plan 9 is 'not worth it' from an economical perspective; pretending Program A is worth less than Program B is a little silly. In the meantime Paul has fun, finds bugs to fix, and I'm one step closer to eradicating ape on my systems. He doesn't answer to 9fans; stop trying to get him to justify himself to you. khm
