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