Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!iconsys!mday From: mday@iconsys.icon.com (Matt Day) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell Subject: Re: Questions concerning BaSH Message-ID: <1991Jan11.203156.14718@iconsys.icon.com> Date: 11 Jan 91 20:31:56 GMT References: <71792@bu.edu.bu.edu> <1991Jan10.183056.20614@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Organization: Sanyo/Icon International, Inc., Orem, Utah Lines: 15 In article <1991Jan10.183056.20614@spool.cs.wisc.edu> bothner@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Per Bothner) writes: >tcsh is ok, but it is a bit of a kludge, and it requires csh >source. Also, I would advise against writing major macros >or programs using [t]csh, given that the Posix standard >(and ksh and bash) are based on Bourne shell syntax. There are plans to rewrite the parts of the csh that under AT&T Copyright, so the csh and the tcsh could be freely distributed under the Berkeley copyright. It is true, that the Bourne shell is the standard, but I would only recommend writing Bourne shell scripts if you need to be portable to stupid systems that don't have csh. For your personal day-to-day shell activity, I find the tcsh a much better choice than the Bourne shell variants. -- - Matt Day, Sanyo/Icon, mday@iconsys.icon.com || uunet!iconsys!mday