home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!network.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
- From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
- Subject: Re: csh bashing
- Message-ID: <1992Aug14.063947.25833@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
- Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
- Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
- References: <BARNETT.92Aug11063536@grymoire.crd.ge.com> <BswF58.17C@csfb1.fir.fbc.com> <1992Aug13.043302.9796@news.acns.nwu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 06:39:47 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Aug13.043302.9796@news.acns.nwu.edu> navarra@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Navarra) writes:
- >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.
-
- If this is literal (which I rather think it isn't), then, as opposed to what
- I might answer for "programming in csh vs programming in *anything but* chs",
- I'd have to say that programming in csh was much better than not programming,
- but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice. 8-).
-
-
- Terry Lambert
- terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
- terry@icarus.weber.edu
- ---
- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
- or previous employers.
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- terry@icarus.weber.edu
- "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-