Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!unisoft!greywolf
From: greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: POSIX bashing
Message-ID: <3478@unisoft.UUCP>
Date: 10 Apr 91 01:07:25 GMT
References: <3419@unisoft.UUCP> <5980071@hpfcdc.HP.COM> <3446@unisoft.UUCP> <15621@smoke.brl.mil> <70319@brunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf)
Organization: Foo Bar and Grill
Lines: 65

/* <70319@brunix.UUCP> by cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
 * In article <3446@unisoft.UUCP> greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf) writes:
 * >...as next to useless as one can get without removing, say,
 * >the "minimal" tty editing functions (erase, kill, intr, quit,
 * 
 * How many applications that you use keep the terminal in cooked mode?  If the

Probably too many for your tastes.  I happen to enjoy cooked mode usually
a lot more than raw mode (because the terminal doesn't grab my input line
immediately).

 * answer is "too many," I recommend the "fep" program, which gives any
 * "cooked" app history and other editing features.  Needless to say, it uses
 * with raw-mode (and a pty).  Unlesss you are a godlike typist, your life will
 * become much easier.

Well, actually, I can type pretty fast (though not entirely accurately :-)).
I find that I can optimally use things like word-kill, line-kill or delete
depending upon how far I've gone on the line.

What's gained by putting a raw-mode interface between you and the terminal?
It's an extra process and a tty/pty pair.  Over a network that becomes
redundant.  Besides that, for every layer you add, response does go down.
Minimally, okay, but most times (*MOST*) I can notice the little bit of
added sluggishness when I type on that extra layer.

#ifdef CSH_BASHER

I use csh, and I like it.  I can get more accomplished with the C shell
than I was ever able to do using the korn shell.  The code is ugly, okay.
The syntax can be ugly, okay.  Vi mode in ksh is a pain.  Emacs mode is
worse.  Both are more sluggish.  I like a nice instantaneous feedback from
my shell's command line.  There are other reasons why I don't use ksh or
BRL sh or bash or whatever, but they're not relevant to the issue at hand.

Csh rebuttals are kindly redirected >& /dev/null.

#endif

 * 
 * Cooked mode is obsolete.

Depends upon the level you're looking at.  If you're looking at it through
serial lines, then yes, cooked mode is obsolete (usually due to the lack
of serial lines on the computer).  If you're looking at it through the net-
work, then no, I must disagree.  I prefer working in cooked mode to working
in raw mode for the reason I stated above.

You can extoll your raw-mode-simulating-cooked-mode interfaces all you want,
but I will insist that that extra layer of overhead simply gets in my way.

 * It was originally an efficiency hack to reduce I/O
 * processing; this has long been a marginal optimisation.  Any text interface
 * written today should use the GNU "readline" libraries, or an equivalent.
 *

But why put an extra layer there...?  You're not saving anything by doing
that, either, really.  And such a thing would be a lose on a shell.  The
one advantage I can see is that one could do convenient things like defining
both Backspace *AND* delete to be "delete", or have both
control-Z and control-P be "suspend" or whatever.

 *
 * curtis
 *