Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy!meissner From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Kolstad's Konjecture Message-ID: Date: 27 Feb 91 17:58:17 GMT References: <1991Feb22.211643.12151@linus.mitre.org> <1991Feb25.184544.20726@convex.com> <14378@ulysses.att.com> <17937@csli.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@OSF.ORG Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 25 In-reply-to: poser@csli.Stanford.EDU's message of 27 Feb 91 04:07:32 GMT In article <17937@csli.Stanford.EDU> poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: | In article <14378@ulysses.att.com> kpv@ulysses.att.com (Phong Vo[drew]) writes: | >csh didn't make it because it wasn't compatible to sh. | | Hmm. I certainly don't know the statistics, but I don't think I've EVER | met anybody outside of AT&T who uses sh rather than csh. I used sh | when I was at Bell, and almost immediately switched to csh when I came | to Stanford. Is it really correct to say that "csh didn't make it"? I dunno, I've use /bin/sh as my one and only interactive shell. I use bash nowadays, with ksh occasionally, which are both upwards compatible extensions of /bin/sh. I also routinely type in 10-20 line pipelines and loops directly into the shell without resorting to shell scripts. What bothers me the most about the csh is the fact that it is not a language, you continually have to remember, oh yes, you must format the if with just the right number of spaces because the csh is without a clue. -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?