Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ukc!root44!pdl
From: pdl@root44.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Callan Unistar 200
Message-ID: <4089@root44.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Jul-83 08:21:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: root44.4089
Posted: Fri Jul  8 08:21:23 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Jul-83 18:51:12 EDT
Lines: 32

>From Dave Lukes ``somewhere in the UK'' (...!vax135!ukc!root44!pdl, actually).

>>>>>>>>>> FLAME ON <<<<<<<<<<:
Steven Bourne put it best: ``the Cshell was an experiment: now we can get it
right'' (that was the gist of what he said, at the EUUG meeting in Bonn).

History:
	This has no place in the command language, it should be at a lower level
(what happens if I want to resubmit a command to my editor? Are you going
to put a history mechanism into vi ??)

So, history shouldn't be there, now the only other advantage of csh is aliases,
and Mr. Bourne has a much nicer mechanism (called functions) for doing what
aliases do (and a LOT more besides), in a much nicer way
(e.g. you can take ANY shell script, put a 1 line header and trailer on it,
making it into a function, and it works just the same, but is much quicker,
etc. etc.).

So: aliases are junk, too. What's left in csh that's of any use ??

A foul and unpleasant control syntax, limited redirection facilities
(see the Shell Tutorial in the System 5 manual for examples for examples
of whizzo things that can be done with a decent i/o redirection mechanism),
and a dumb and arbitrary lack of compatibility with the decent (rah-rah) shell,
even in areas where it would have been easy to keep them compatible.
>>>>>>>>>> FLAME OFF <<<<<<<<<<.

O.K., so I'm a bigot too (I was raised on V6/V7 shells, and I'm lazy),
but the points made above are STILL valid. I just thing csh is a waste of time.

			Never afraid to show my true colours,
				Dave Lukes.