Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!nmsu!opus!eoshough From: eoshough@nmsu.edu (Azel The Destroyer) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell Subject: Re: csh, ksh, or sh? Message-ID: Date: 10 Dec 90 16:09:12 GMT References: <3333@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1990Dec10.013209.29955@cs.ucla.edu> Sender: news@NMSU.Edu Distribution: comp.unix.programmer,comp.unix Organization: NMSU Computer Science Lines: 33 In-reply-to: gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu's message of 10 Dec 90 01:32:09 GMT >In article <3333@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> wolf@piquet.cipl.uiowa.edu (Mike Wolf) writes: >>We are in the process of determining what shell to use. If I can get >>the opinions, advice, and facts about problems with any of the >>following shells: csh, ksh, sh. In article <1990Dec10.013209.29955@cs.ucla.edu> gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >The ksh is far and above the best shell of these three. If you have the >$3K for a source license from AT&T go for it. Make sure that you get the >license for u of i and not just your group. I don't know about that, as a user/programmer/semi-novice shell programmer I've found sh to be the most lack-luster, ksh to be the most antagonistic, and csh/tcsh to be the one I've felt the most comfortable with. Course that could just be a remenant of my C experience, and probably not the most objective statement around. There it is, if anyone cares. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ ~ | Erik O'Shaughnessy |\/\/\/| ~ | Small Systems | | ~ | New Mexico State University | * | ~ o========== | Las Cruces, NM USA | (x)(x) |_|==== | eoshough@dante.nmsu.edu C _) === |------------------------------------ | ,___| === |"Do not follow the NULL pointer, | / | for that path leads to chaos, /____\ Die Bart! Die! | and madness." - me | \ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------