home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!navarra
- From: navarra@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Navarra)
- Subject: Re: csh bashing
- Message-ID: <1992Aug13.043302.9796@news.acns.nwu.edu>
- Sender: usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns)
- Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
- References: <BARNETT.92Aug5151209@grymoire.crd.ge.com> <BARNETT.92Aug11063536@grymoire.crd.ge.com> <BswF58.17C@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:33:02 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <BswF58.17C@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> uunet!csfb1!jbrock writes:
- >Seriously. It's nice to know which tools knowledgeable people respect
- >and which they don't. But what about ksh? It's hardly figured in
- >the proceedings and I'm feeling left out! Is it worthy? Considered
- >harmful? Beneath consideration?
-
- It's not that we aren't considering ksh, but that we are arguing
- over the merits of programming in csh vs NOT programming in csh. I claim
- that experts do not program in csh unless they HAVE to (for .login scripts
- and the like) and even then, they still regret it. Other people claim that
- csh is actually useful to program in for rare circumstances. There is the
- point that some people do not have access to all the available tools, but
- part of the reason for that is because people still insist on using csh
- even though there are obviously better FREE choices. The vendors are to
- blame here and so are the proponents of a shell which is long past
- sticking a fork in.
- To argue the merits of a particular shell vs another shell would
- be to close to comp.unix.shells.
-
- -tms
-
-
- --
- From the Lab of the MaD ScIenTiST:
-
- navarra@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
-