4 ms·

"The current POSIX standard defines source code-level compatibility for only two programming languages: The C language (C99) and the command language (shell)."

"The current POSIX standard defines source code-level compatibility for only two programming languages: The C language (C99) and the command language (shell)." There is also a definition of AWK: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/awk.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/a...

dspillett 2y ago
There is an argument that Awk's language isn't the same category as it is a DSL not intended to be a general purpose language (it is turning-complete, but was not specifically designed as such), and awk itself is considered a complex tool not a language interpreter. Though having said that, any definition that separates awk from general programming languages like that could probably apply to shell syntax too.
- anthk 2y ago
  Awk can do more than you think. Read The AWK Progamming Language. Also: gopher://hoi.st/1/dl and gopher://hoi.st/0/files/tgl.awk make up a pretty complete language. Don't think on AWK as a more powerful grep, you are missing a great mini-language.
skissane 2y ago
There used to be POSIX.5 which standardised Ada bindings and POSIX.9 which standardised Fortran bindings, but both were abandoned (I assume due to lack of interest)
fanf2 2y ago
and sed https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sed.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/s... and m4 https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/m4.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/m... and ex https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/ex.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/e... and bc https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/bc.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/b... unix isn’t short of programming languages!
- iaabtpbtpnn 2y ago
  Just short of good ones!
  - smitty1e 2y ago
    Given their longevity, it seems difficult to label them "bad".
  - blueflow 2y ago
    I'd always take the old POSIX stuff over whatever gets bought by IBM next year.
vorakl 2y ago
Certainly true. I just referred to this definition "2.4 Other Language-Related Specifications POSIX.1-2017 is currently specified in terms of the shell command language and ISO C. Bindings to other programming languages are being developed." I've added a few words and links to other "utilities".

dspillett 2y ago

There is an argument that Awk's language isn't the same category as it is a DSL not intended to be a general purpose language (it is turning-complete, but was not specifically designed as such), and awk itself is considered a complex tool not a language interpreter. Though having said that, any definition that separates awk from general programming languages like that could probably apply to shell syntax too.

anthk 2y ago
Awk can do more than you think. Read The AWK Progamming Language. Also: gopher://hoi.st/1/dl and gopher://hoi.st/0/files/tgl.awk make up a pretty complete language. Don't think on AWK as a more powerful grep, you are missing a great mini-language.

skissane 2y ago

There used to be POSIX.5 which standardised Ada bindings and POSIX.9 which standardised Fortran bindings, but both were abandoned (I assume due to lack of interest)

fanf2 2y ago

and sed https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sed.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/s... and m4 https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/m4.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/m... and ex https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/ex.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/e... and bc https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/bc.html https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/b... unix isn’t short of programming languages!

iaabtpbtpnn 2y ago
Just short of good ones!
- smitty1e 2y ago
  Given their longevity, it seems difficult to label them "bad".
- blueflow 2y ago
  I'd always take the old POSIX stuff over whatever gets bought by IBM next year.

vorakl 2y ago

Certainly true. I just referred to this definition "2.4 Other Language-Related Specifications POSIX.1-2017 is currently specified in terms of the shell command language and ISO C. Bindings to other programming languages are being developed." I've added a few words and links to other "utilities".