hckrnws

> Another option is to use Python, which is ubiquitous enough that it can be expected to be installed on virtually every machine

Not on macOS. You can do it easily by just invoking /usr/bin/python3, but you’ll get a (short and non-threatening) dialog to install the Xcode Command-Line Developer Tools. For macOS environments, JavaScript for Automation (i.e. JXA, i.e /usr/bin/osascript -l JavaScript) is a better choice.

However, since Sequoia, jq is now installed by default on macOS.

I feel like the takeaway here is that jq should probably be considered an indispensable part of the modern shell environment. Because without it, you can't sensibly deal with JSON in a shell script, and JSON is everywhere now. It's cool that you can write a parser in awk but the point of this kind of scripting language is to not have to do things like that.

One day I wanted to use a TAP parser for the Test Anything Protocol.

But I didn't want to be bogged down by dependencies.. so I didn't want to go nowhere near Python (and pyenv.. and anaconda.. and then probably having to dockerize that for some reason too..) nor nodeJS nor any of that.

Found a bash shell script to parse TAP written by ESR of all people. That sounds fine, I thought. Most everywhere has bash, and there are no other dependencies.

But it was slow. I mean.. painfully, ridiculously slow. Parsing like 400 lines of TAP took almost a minute.

That's when I did some digging and learned about what awk really is. A scripting language that's baked into the POSIX suite. I had heard vaguely about it beforehand, but never realized it had more power than it's sed/ed/cut/etc brethren in the suite.

So I coded up a TAP parser in awk and it went swimmingly, matched the ESR parser's feature set, and ran millions of lines in less than a second. Score! :D

For the record, "python-without-extra-dependencies" is a thing and a very nice one too. I always prefer it over awk.

Highly recommend to everyone - plenty of "batteries" included, like json parser, basic http client and even XML parser, and no venv/conda required. Very good forward compatibility. Fast (compared to bash).

Awk is great and this is a great post. But dang, awk really shoots itself so much with its lack of features that it so desperately needs!

Like: printing all but one column somewhere in the middle. It turns into long, long commands that really pull away from the spirit of fast fabrication unix experimentation.

jq and sql both have the same problem :)

  $ echo "one two three four five" | awk '{$3="";print}'
  one two  four five

Oh dang, that's good.

As long as you don't mind the extra space in the middle.

Often times I don't! Entirely depends on what I'm doing. #1 thing off the top of my head is to remove That One Column that's a bajillion characters long that makes exploratory analysis difficult.

I wonder if it's possible to encode the backspace character in the replacement string?

No problem, there's \b.

  echo "one two three four five" | awk '{$3="\b"; print}'

  awk '{$3="\b"; sub(/\32\b/, ""); print}'

if you do:

    sed 's/  / /g'

Or sticking with awk, I have this bash alias to remove excess whitespace that is just:

    awk '{$1=$1};1'

> awk really shoots itself so much with its lack of features that it so desperately needs

Whence perl.

Using the Perl module JSON::PP, the programme json_pp is installed.

The following command is handy for grepping the output:

    cat mydata.json  | json_pp

or raku

https://github.com/moritz/json/blob/master/lib/JSON/Tiny/Gra...

I suspect the rationale for Perl is that most Linux systems will probably have it installed already. Installing something you're familiar with is great when you can, but I'm guessing the awk script linked to here was picked more for its ubiquity than elegance.

Kinda, but not really. Of the infrastructures I've worked on, not a single one has been consistent in installing perl on 100% of hosts. The ones that get close are usually like that because one high up person really, really likes perl. And they send a lot of angry emails about perl not being installed.

Within infrastructures where perl is installed on 95% of hosts, that 5% really bites you in the ass and leads to infrastructure rot very quickly. You're kinda stuck writing and maintaining two separate scripts to do the same thing.

Same with Python. It's mostly available, but sometimes not.

With Perl, I find that a base installation is almost always available, but many packages might not be.

I dunno about that. IME, python is much, much more universally installed on the hosts I've worked on. Sure, usually it's 2.7, but it's there! I've tended to work on rhel and debian hosts, with some fedora in the mix.

(Once had a coworker reject a PR I wrote because I included a bash builtin in a deployment script. He said that python is more likely to be installed than bash, so we should not use bash. These debates are funny sometimes.)

>awk really shoots itself so much with its lack of features that it so desperately needs!

That's why I use Perl instead (besides some short one liners in awk, which in some cases are even shorter than the Perl version) and do my JSON parsing in Perl.

This

diff -rs a/ b/ | ask '/identical/ {print $4}' | xargs rm

is one of my often used awk one liners. Unless some filenames contain e.g. whitespace, then it's Perl again

I've been using perl instead of sed because PCRE is just better and it's the same regex that PHP uses which I've been coding in for nearly 20 years. I still don't actually know perl, but apparently Gemini does. It wrote a particularly crazy find and replace for me. Never got around to using or learning awk. Only time I see it come up is when you want to parse some tab delimited output

This is much safer: xargs -d '\n' rm -f --

Sure, but my example was just that and I actually use /identical$/ as the pattern. Sorry for the typo.

And I use this "historic" one liner only when I know about the contents of both directories. As soon as I need a "safer" solution I use a Perl script and pattern matching, as I said.

In this case the Perl one-liner would be conceptually identical, the same length, but more performant (no calling out to rm):

   diff -rs a/ b/ | perl -ane '/identical$/ && unlink $F[3]'

Us old UNIX guys would likely go for cut for this sort of task:

     cut -d " " -f1-2,4-5 file.txt

     one two three four five

     one two four five

...And once you get away from the most basic, standard set of features, the several awks in existence have diverging sets of additional features.

Things are already like that, friend! We have mawk, gawk and nawk. But it's fun to think about how we could improve our ideal tooling if we had a time machine.

Contemplating this, it’s too bad the Unix scripting ecosystem never evolved a tripartite symbiosis of ‘file‘, ‘lex‘, and ‘yacc‘, or similar tools.

That is, one tool to magically identify a file type, one to tokenize it based on that identification, one to correspondingly parse it. All in a streaming/pipe-friendly mode.

Would fit right in, other than the Unix prejudice (nonsensical from Day 0) for LF-separated text records as the “one true format”.

I guess ... I don't think it really gets you much unless it's 1-pass streaming otherwise we're dealing with entire input buffers and then we're just back to files.

You could argue using the vertical separator | is more syntactically graceful but then it's just a shell argument. There's quite a few radically different shells out there these days like xonsh, murex, and nushell so if simply arranging logic on the screen in a different syntax is what you're looking for then that's probably the way.

JSON is not a friendly format to the Unix shell — it’s hierarchical, and cannot be reasonably split on any character

Yes, shell is definitely too weak to parse JSON!

(One reason I started https://oils.pub is because I saw that bash completion scripts try to parse bash in bash, which is an even worse idea than trying to parse JSON in bash)

I'd argue that Awk is ALSO too weak to parse JSON

The following code assumes that it will be fed valid JSON. It has some basic validation as a function of the parsing and will most likely throw an error if it encounters something strange, but there are no guarantees beyond that.

Yeah I don't like that! If you don't reject invalid input, you're not really parsing

---

OSH and YSH both have JSON built-in, and they have the hierarchical/recursive data structures you need for the common Python/JS-like API:

    osh-0.33$ var d = { date: $(date --iso-8601) }

    osh-0.33$ json write (d) | tee tmp.txt
    {
      "date": "2025-06-28"
    }

    $ cat tmp.txt | json read (&x)

    osh-0.33$ = x
    (Dict)  {date: '2025-06-28'}

    osh-0.33$ sed 's/"/bad/"' tmp.txt | json read (&x)
    sed: -e expression #1, char 9: unknown option to `s'
      sed 's/"/bad/"' tmp.txt | json read (&x)
                                     ^~~~
    [ interactive ]:20: json read: Unexpected EOF while parsing JSON (line 1, offset 0-0: '')

Another example from wezm yesterday: https://mastodon.decentralised.social/@wezm/1147586026608361...

YSH has JSON natively, but for anyone interested, it would be fun to test out the language by writing a JSON parser in YSH

It's fundamentally more powerful than shell and awk because it has garbage-collected data structures - https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2024/09/gc.html

Also, OSH is now FASTER than bash, in both computation and I/O. This is despite garbage collection, and despite being written in typed Python! I hope to publish a post about these recent improvements

The same author already had made the more thorough jawk. They explicitly said they wanted a cut down version. It's not illegal to want a cut down version of something.

I don't really buy that shell / awk is "too weak" to deal with JSON, the ecosystem of tools is just fairly immature as most of the shells common tools predate JSON by at least a decade. `jq` being a pretty reasonable addition to the standard set of tools included in environments by default.

IMO the real problem is that JSON doesn't work very well at as a because it's core abstraction is objects. It's a pain to deal with in pretty much every statically typed non-object oriented language unless you parse it into native, predefined data structures (think annotated Go structs, Rust, etc.).

I'd say that awk really is too weak. Awk has a grand total of 2 data types: strings, and associative arrays mapping strings to strings. There is no support for arbitrarily nested data structures. You can simulate them with arrays if you really want to, or you could shell out to jq, but it's definitely swimming upstream.

Most languages aren't quite that bad. Even if they can't handle JSON very ergonomically, almost every language has at least some concept of nesting objects inside other objects.

What about shell? Just like awk, bash and zsh have a limited number of data types (the same two as awk plus non-associative arrays). So arguably it has the same problem. On the other hand, as you say, in shell it's perfectly idiomatic to use external tools, and jq is one such tool, available on an increasing number of systems. So you may as well store JSON data in your string variables and use jq to access it as needed. Probably won't be any slower than the calls to sed or awk or cut that fill out most shell scripts.

Now, personally, I've gotten into the habit of writing shell scripts with minimal use of external tools. If you stick to shell builtins, your script will run much faster. And both bash and zsh have a pretty decent suite of string manipulation tools, including some regex support, so you often don't actually need sed or awk or cut. However, this also rules out jq, and neither shell has any remotely comparable builtin.

But you might reasonably object that if I care about speed, I would be better off using a real programming language!

> Yes, shell is definitely too weak to parse JSON!

Parsing is a trivial, rejecting invalid input is trivial, the problem is representing the parsed content in a meaningful way.

> bash completion scripts try to parse bash in bash

You're talking about ble.sh, right? I investigated it as well.

I think they made some choices that eventually led to the parser being too complex, largely due to the problem of representing what was parsed.

> Also, OSH is now FASTER than bash, in both computation and I/O.

According to my tests, this is true. Congratulations!

I was referring to the bash-completion project, the default on Debian/Ubuntu - https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/

But yes, ble.sh also has a shell parser in shell, although it uses a state machine style that's more principled than bash regex / sed crap.

---

Also, distro build systems like Alpine Linux and others tend to parse shell in shell (or with sed).

They often need package metadata without executing package builds, so they do that by trying to parse shell.

In YSH, you will be able to do that with reflection, basically like Lisp/Python/Ruby, rather than ad hoc parsing.

---

I'm glad to hear you can see the effect of the optimizations ! That took a long time :-)

Some more benchmarks here, which I'll write about: https://oils.pub/release/0.33.0/benchmarks.wwz/osh-runtime/

did something along those lines a while ago https://github.com/izabera/j trying to keep an interface similar to jq

I use flex. Faster than awk or python. It produces relatively seems to be available "everywhere" because it is a build requirement for so many software programs. For exampole, NetBSD toolchain includes it. It is a build requirement for Linux kernel.^1 I have even used it with Interix SFU on Windows before WSL existed.

I do not use jq. Too complicated for me. Overkill. I created statically-linked program less than half the size of official statically-linked jq that is adequate for own needs. flex is a build requirement for jq.

1. https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/admin-guide/quickly...

just use nushell man

“except Unicode escape sequences”

The same author also made jawk which is more thorough. This is explicitly stated to be a cut down version.

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.