On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Harry W. Waddell wrote:

> Peter Seebach wrote:
> > 
> > Would anyone be opposed to replaing gawk with mawk?  mawk is smaller,
> > faster, and cleaner.  It has fewer features, but most of the "features"
> > it lacks are in perl anyway.  :)
> 
> I guess it would depend on which features I lost. Forcing one to use perl
> to get back the features doesn't sound like much of a cost savings, IMHO.

Ditto.

--scott