Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale
From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Sh/Csh script help
Message-ID: <1989Oct7.032510.27359@rpi.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 89 03:25:10 GMT
References: <5441@portia.Stanford.EDU> <3487@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Followup-To: alt.religion.computers
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 17

In <3487@midway.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
Jack> I don't see why anyone needs to learn about csh any more, since
Jack> ksh essentially supersedes it and there are very few existing
Jack> nontrivial csh scripts needing to be maintained.

ksh does not "essentially supersede" csh.  It is not as common and not
as widely distributed with basic Unix systems.  Some people still like
csh as their interactive shell, too.  I haven't decided whether to
switch to bash from tcsh yet, but ksh isn't even really in the running.
I'm not saying that it's a bad shell, just that it doesn't "supersede".

Follow-ups, if any, in alt.religion.computers.  The argument that
might ensue shouldn't clutter c.u.q.  

Dave
-- 
 (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))