Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions

On 28/05/2024 17:56, Michael S wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2024 15:06:40 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
 

On 28/05/2024 12:41, Michael S wrote:

On Sun, 26 May 2024 13:09:36 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
  

>
I think you might be missing the point here.
>

 I don't think so.
I understand your points and agree with just about everything. My post
was off topic, intentionally so.
 If we talk about practicalities, the problems with xxd, if there are
problems at all, are not its speed, but the size of the text file
it produces (~6x the size of original binary) and its availability.
I don't know to which package it belongs in typical Linux or BSD
distributions, but at least on Windows/msys2 it is part of Vim - rather
big package for which, apart from xxd, I have no use at all.
 

On Debian, xxd is in a package called "xxd" which contains just xxd and directly associated files (like man pages).  I see that "vim-common" depends on "xxd", so it will get pulled in if you install vim, but not vice-versa.  (It's pretty common to have vim installed on *nix systems anyway, as part of the base set of general packages.)