Xref: utzoo comp.unix.amiga:1047 comp.unix.shell:2460 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!morgan From: morgan@ogicse.ogi.edu (Clark O. Morgan) Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga,comp.unix.shell Subject: ksh vs csh (was Re: SVR4 /bin/sh BUG) Message-ID: <23109@ogicse.ogi.edu> Date: 20 Jun 91 20:47:39 GMT References: <109310@becker.UUCP> <1991Jun14.042736.28910@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> <1991Jun15.014909.1562@menudo.uh.edu> <1991Jun15.141609.848@ckctpa.UUCP> <1991Jun17.234824.20461@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <1991Jun18.023211.25558@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> pd@x.co.uk (Paul Davey) writes: >-> 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? > >Another advantage is that csh is more likely to be present, I work on >many machines, and like as standard an environment as is practicable. > >Also ksh doesn't have the ability to refer to !-5:3 (not that I do >this very often but !131$ or !132* are very useful. How true. Also, csh's "!?" history notation is extremely useful. I use ksh every day and hope never again to be forced to use "bare" csh (command line editing is quite a time saver). But the absence of the history features you mentioned (and "!?") is irritating. Fortunately, there is an alternative. The GNU shell, bash, supports both command line and history editing (ala ksh) _and_ the csh history recall syntax. Since bash sources are available via FTP, you can place this shell on every machine you use. I suspect I will be switching to bash very soon.... -- Clark O. Morgan morgan@cse.ogi.edu ...!uunet!ogicse!morgan