Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site ttds.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!mcvax!enea!ttds!johanw
From: johanw@ttds.UUCP (Johan Wide'n)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: CSH -> SH converter
Message-ID: <596@ttds.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Sep-84 18:51:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttds.596
Posted: Thu Sep 20 18:51:59 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 07:04:08 EDT
References: <12880@sri-arpa.UUCP> <4288@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: The Royal Inst. of Techn., Stockholm
Lines: 14

> The C Shell is obviously an inferior product.  As Steve Bourne is rumored
> to have said:  "The C Shell was an experiment.  Now we can get it right."

I think that both sh and csh have a right to exist. Some (I...) prefer
csh (or its relatives) to sh, as a command interpreter.
The Bourne shell is certainly a better programming language,
but it's far from the last word on command interpreters.
The ksh (Korn shell, an extended Bourne shell. Ksh was developed at Bell
and is for some reason unavailable. Sigh) is more like it.

I guess the reason that we don't see more jazzed up versions
of shell is that (t)csh is already available.

{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!ttds!johanw         Johan Widen