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.