Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!gwyn@brl-vld From: gwyn%brl-vld@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Shell programming style -- a plea for better shell scripts Message-ID: <16861@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-Feb-84 03:24:44 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.16861 Posted: Wed Feb 22 03:24:44 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 2-Mar-84 08:12:15 EST Lines: 15 From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)The Bourne shell is not only much faster than the Cshell, it is more suitable for programming scripts for several reasons, the main one of which is the ability to redirect I/O of control loop commands. There is a form of "subroutine" in the UNIX System V Release 2 Bourne shell. The only thing that the Bourne shell still does not have that the Cshell does that is worth having is a "history" mechanism. Korn put a hack into the shell to support a generalization of the idea of command history editing; he wrote the last several commands to a file and then invoked the editor (your choice via the EDITOR environment variable) to allow you to edit the history before it was re-executed. Some people would include "job control" in the Cshell advantages but this doesn't matter if you have a nice terminal like a Teletype 5620.