Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!mtunx!whuts!homxb!genesis!hotlr!dkc From: dkc@hotlr.ATT (Dave Cornutt) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Re^2: Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution? Summary: Gee, I must be insane Keywords: shell ksh csh Message-ID: <394@hotlr.ATT> Date: 2 Jun 88 13:51:35 GMT References: <2599@usceast.UUCP> <2601@usceast.UUCP> <10857@steinmetz.ge.com> <7941@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2132@munnari.oz> <7828@ncoast.UUCP> Reply-To: dkc@hotlr.UUCP (Dave Cornutt) Organization: Not much, but I'm working on it Lines: 22 In article <7828@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > As quoted from <2132@munnari.oz> by kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz): > +--------------- > | Then surely no-one sane would actually write a csh script to be used > | for anything more than personal uses, its programming language is so > | foul (only just a bit better than the v6 shell it replaced) that you'd > | have to be insane. > +--------------- Hmmm... I must be insane. I have written several things in csh script, and I find it considerably easier to write than sh/ksh script. I actually prefer being able to use C-style operators instead of having to go look up obscure "test" operators all the time. Methinks it's a matter of personal preference, like choice of editors. (Actually, my perference is to use ksh for interactive use and csh for scripts.) -- Dave Cornutt, AT&T Bell Labs (rm 4A406,x1088), Holmdel, NJ UUCP:{ihnp4,allegra,cbosgd}!hotly!dkc "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily my employer's, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary"