texlive-batch-installation VS goawk

The Problem is that TeXLive still defaults to doing a full install.

A full install means installing ~4000 packages, including their source files (tens of thousands of tex files) and built documentation (thousands of PDF files) and hundreds of free fonts (otfs, ttfs, texs own format).

This is huge (>7GB, not just the 5 GB claimed here).

However, you don't need 99 % of this for any given document.

Not installing the source files and documentation PDFs will alone reduce the size by roughly half.

Only installing the packages you really need from a minimal installation gives you a few hundred megabytes at most for even complex documents.

It's a bit annoying to get the list of packages needed though, since there is not really any working dependency management.

I wrote a python wrapper around the tex live installer [1] to make this easy for CI jobs, see e.g. [2].

On a side note: I'd recommend luatex over xetex.

- [1] https://github.com/maxnoe/texlive-batch-installation/

- [2] https://github.com/pep-dortmund/toolbox-workshop/blob/8b00f0...

TIL: GoAWK [1] - A POSIX-compliant AWK interpreter written in Go, with CSV support.

[1]: https://github.com/benhoyt/goawk

Another nice project that I have used from time to time (and a very good source for insight) is the awk interpreter written in go https://github.com/benhoyt/goawk

No, I want exactly the opposite - it should be a , b,c as a single string field containing a literal comma, and c. For example, https://github.com/benhoyt/goawk has csv support. https://github.com/benhoyt/goawk/blob/master/docs/csv.md - more info.

I've had a go at solving this in this PR -- feedback welcome. I don't love it, but oh well, it solves the problem at hand. Your comment pointed me in the right direction, thanks again.

There are quite a few re-implementations of scripting languages like Lua in Go. I've written an AWK interpreter in Go.

github.com/benhoyt/goawk -> this library lets you embed an AWK runtime in your applications, very easy to use and useful for enabling some powerful scripting in things you build

Yes, that's right. With my simplistic UTF-8-based implementation it turned length() -- for example -- from O(1) to O(N), turning O(N) algorithms which use length() into O(N^2). See this issue: https://github.com/benhoyt/goawk/issues/93

Similar with substr() and other string functions, which when operating as bytes are O(1), but become O(N) when trying to count the number of codepoints as UTF-8.

GNU Gawk has a fancier approach, which stores strings as UTF-8 as long as it can, but converts to UTF-32 if it needs to (eg: the string is non-ASCII and you call substr).

It looks like Brian Kernighan's code has the same issue with length() and substr(). I'm going to try to email him about this, as I think it's kind of a performance blocker.

I'm not sure if it was via my personal website or just my GitHub profile, but I got my current job at Canonical due to the CTO there reaching out about my GoAWK project (https://github.com/benhoyt/goawk). I get regular recruitment emails because I have my CV/resume online: most of them are very low-effort, but 1 in 20 or something are interesting emails where the recruiter has actually looked at my website and will tailor it personally. I also just enjoy technical writing, and get joy out of sharing it on HN. So it's "worth it" for me.