[augustk]

"The current POSIX standard defines source code-level compatibility for only two programming languages: The C language (C99) and the command language (shell)."

There is also a definition of AWK:

https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/a...

[fanf2]

and sed https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/s...

and m4 https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/m...

and ex https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/e...

and bc https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/b...

unix isn’t short of programming languages!

[iaabtpbtpnn]

Just short of good ones!

[blueflow]

I'd always take the old POSIX stuff over whatever gets bought by IBM next year.

[smitty1e]

Given their longevity, it seems difficult to label them "bad".

[skissane]

There used to be POSIX.5 which standardised Ada bindings and POSIX.9 which standardised Fortran bindings, but both were abandoned (I assume due to lack of interest)

[vorakl]

Certainly true. I just referred to this definition

"2.4 Other Language-Related Specifications

POSIX.1-2017 is currently specified in terms of the shell command language and ISO C. Bindings to other programming languages are being developed."

I've added a few words and links to other "utilities".

[dspillett]

There is an argument that Awk's language isn't the same category as it is a DSL not intended to be a general purpose language (it is turning-complete, but was not specifically designed as such), and awk itself is considered a complex tool not a language interpreter.

Though having said that, any definition that separates awk from general programming languages like that could probably apply to shell syntax too.

[anthk]

Awk can do more than you think. Read The AWK Progamming Language.

Also:

gopher://hoi.st/1/dl and gopher://hoi.st/0/files/tgl.awk

make up a pretty complete language.

Don't think on AWK as a more powerful grep, you are missing a great mini-language.