Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Kolstad's Konjecture Message-ID: Date: 27 Feb 91 16:13:54 GMT References: <1991Feb22.211643.12151@linus.mitre.org> <1991Feb25.184544.20726@convex.com> <14378@ulysses.att.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 24 In article <14378@ulysses.att.com> kpv@ulysses.att.com (Phong Vo[drew]) writes: > > Kolstad's Konjecture: A new programming language will enjoy widespread > > success in the UNIX community in direct proportion to that language's > > resemblance to C; compare the relative success of awk, perl, and C++ > > with that of icon, scheme, and smalltalk. > Partial counter-example: csh. Why? CSH was touted as a shell with "c-like" syntax, but it isn't really anything like C. It's just more C-like than the version 6 shell... a shell with a basic-like syntax. If anything, the bourne shell feels more natural to my c-trained fingers. > csh didn't make it because it wasn't compatible to sh. CSH predated the bourne shell. At one time in Berkeley there were three options: the Version 6 shell, a weird bird called the Pascal shell, and the C shell. If the bourne shell had been available the C shell would have been stillbourne. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"