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"