Re: which command I should use to output sequentially,
>>>>> shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Jul 27, 2011 3:44 AM, "Ivan Shmakov" <ivan@gray.siamics.net> wrote:
[…]
>> While I've little to say about using a database for this case, I'd
>> strongly recommend /against/ using any office-like solutions for
>> data processing, as these are generally overweight and rarely
>> convenient when it comes to writing scripts.
> The point of writing a script / program is to have a reusable
> process.
Since the OP has mentioned a Shell command, I've assumed that
it's the case.
[…]
>> Actually, I've seen these tools (along with, say, Gnuplot and GNU
>> M4) being successfully used to process various scientific data.
>> (Not to mention that I've a first-hand experience with this just as
>> well.)
>> It may be not a perfect solution, but I'm quite certain it's one of
>> the best currently available ones.
> Never used m4 so can't comment specifically.
There, it's used to prepare Gnuplot command files out of the
templates. It's not a necessity, but it was a bit more handy to
do it that way, rather than using, say:
… \
| sed -e "s/@FOO@/${FOO}/g" \
| … \
| gnuplot
> However, I'd look at some of the bio perl modules if this was the
> type of data I was looking at. Either way, learning dozens of tools
> to manipulate lots of data is quite time consuming, prone to failure,
> and quite frankly senseless.
How it's different to learning dozens of functions documented in
perlfunc(3)? Or even more, should CPAN modules be taken into
account? How could it be that the Shell commands do not form a
library, or a set of, of a sort?
[…]
--
FSF associate member #7257
Reply to: