home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!nntp.Stanford.EDU!dkeisen
- From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
- Subject: Re: Really stupid questions
- Message-ID: <1992Dec18.085204.10316@leland.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
- Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
- References: <009653DD.EFDB4180@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1992Dec18.043623.23417@credit.erin.utoronto.ca>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 08:52:04 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1992Dec18.043623.23417@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> glover@credit.erin.utoronto.ca (Mike Glover) writes:
- >>3) Which shell is better? I am currently using /bin/csh, but people keep
- >> telling me that I should use the Bourne shell. /bin/sh
- >Heres a horseshoe in your world...How about tcsh. I believe it to be the best
- >shell I have run across yet. I have used sh/csh/tcsh/ksh. Of all of them
- >I believe tcsh to be heads and shoulders above the rest. If you are doing
- >shell programming I prefer sh (but thats a personal choice)
-
- I agree with your answers to all 4 questions, including your
- recommendation of tcsh. All I disagree with is your statement
- that for shell programming you prefer sh as a personal choice.
-
- Nope. No personal choice here. sh is flat out better than csh.
- See Tom Christiansen's article "C Shell Programming Considered
- Harmful" for some reasons why.
-
-
-
- --
- Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
- dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU Home: (415) 321-5154
- There's something in my library to offend everybody.
- --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
-