Re: best log checker
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:15:32PM +0000, s. keeling wrote:
> Douglas Allan Tutty <email@example.com>:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 02:55:12AM +0000, s. keeling wrote:
> > > Douglas Allan Tutty <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > >
> > Why doesn't someone make a companion interactive rule maker? Run it in
> i) This is free software. Go right ahead. :-) Some of the
> neatest stuff came into being because someone felt an itch they
> couldn't scratch. It's probably a very difficult problem to
> solve, though.
> ii) Unix-ish OSs have a steep learning curve. The curve pays off
> with extraordinary power.
> Regular expressions aren't difficult to master. The biggest problem
> I've found with them is subsets of them. Shell RE's, perl RE's, awk,
> ... Some work in all of them, some work in only one of them, some
> work differently in each. It can be confusing, but it's really not
> that hard.
Even on my 486, my brute-force log checker completes in under a minute.
It may be worth it if RE would save an hour or so.
I still have trouble with conditional stuff (like if) in bash. I use
bash scripting like dos .bat files. If (so to speak) I need
conditionals, I switch to python. I don't like languages where having
two spaces instead of one (or none if beside a bracket) creates an
error. Having a whole line consist of mostly punctuation (like your RE
example) makes me think my printer is on the fritz.