Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!geraldo.Central.Sun.COM!texsun!convex!swarren From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga Subject: Re: SVR4 /bin/sh BUG Message-ID: <1991Jun17.141335.18438@convex.com> Date: 17 Jun 91 14:13:35 GMT References: <1991Jun14.042736.28910@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> <1991Jun15.014909.1562@menudo.uh.edu> <1991Jun15.141609.848@ckctpa.UUCP> Sender: usenet@convex.com (news access account) Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA Lines: 31 Nntp-Posting-Host: neptune.convex.com In article <1991Jun15.141609.848@ckctpa.UUCP> crash@ckctpa.UUCP (Frank J. Edwards) writes: [...] >Why do *you* use csh? What are the advantages (please be specific and >objective) of csh over ksh? [...] I got csh as my default shell on the first unix account I ever had. So I learned to write shell scripts in csh syntax. Since then I have been required to write many scripts in ksh syntax because our hardware diagnostic shell is a superset of ksh. I suppose that I am ruined because of the large number of csh scripts I have written. But the subtle distinctions in ksh on paren usage and placement of whitespace in various circumstances always causes trouble for me. I generally have to write very short scripts that test my arithmetic expressions seperately before I can include them in the rest of my scripts. Often I find myself mystified when I discover what it takes to get an expression to produce the effect I desired. For my purposes these distinctions are counter-intuitive and cost me productivity. Please note I am not a programmer; I am a hardware guy. Of course there are plenty of people here who swear by ksh. But I prefer csh. For my interactive shell I use tcsh, which provides me with interactive benefits surpassing what ksh is currently capable of, while remaining compatible with csh syntax. -- _. --Steve ._||__ Warren v\ *| V