home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!cats.ucsc.edu!isbell
- From: isbell@cats.ucsc.edu (Art Isbell)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.programmer
- Subject: Re: tcsh
- Message-ID: <1ifcr1INNhp8@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
- Date: 6 Jan 93 19:44:33 GMT
- References: <1993Jan6.155021.23331@ms.uky.edu>
- Organization: Cubic Solutions - NeXT software development and consulting
- Lines: 31
- NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu
-
-
- In article <1993Jan6.155021.23331@ms.uky.edu> iguana@mik.uky.edu writes:
- >:> Hello. I have seen several tcsh shells available on the net. Is
- >:>there any particularly compelling reason to use tcsh vs csh vs sh?
- >:>
- >:> Thanks
- >:> Jake
- >
- >Cshell is generally accepted over Bourne shell (sh) for the fact that it
- >allows shell programming in the C language. TCshell is often used because
- >it allows for WATCHes to be set. For instance, I use TCshell because I can
- >leave a terminal window open and it will update me as to who is logging
- >into and off my machine.
-
- As he enters what is certainly a religious issue...
-
- But Bourne shell is accepted by many as the preferable shell script syntax
- despite its syntactical differences from the C language. But the Bourne shell
- is rather archaic relative the the C shell for interactive use. The resolution
- to this dilemma has been adopted by the Free Software Foundation (the GNU
- project) under the guise of bash (Bourne-Again SHell - you gotta love those
- guys :-) which offers a set of C shell and Korn shell features, but uses a
- Bourne shell syntax superset. When considering why Bourne shell syntax might
- be preferable to C shell, I think its important to realize that the GNU project
- could have based its shell on either and chose the Bourne shell.
- --
-
- Art Isbell Cubic Solutions
- NeXT Registered Developer #745 NeXT software development and consulting
- NeXTmail: isbell@cats.UCSC.EDU Voice: (408)335-1154
- USmail: 95018-9442 Fax: (408)335-2515
-