Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!axis!philip
From: philip@axis.UUCP (Philip Peake)
Newsgroups: net.bugs.4bsd
Subject: Re: - csh weirdness
Message-ID: <508@axis.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Apr-86 12:54:53 EST
Article-I.D.: axis.508
Posted: Thu Apr 10 12:54:53 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Apr-86 22:22:24 EST
References: <149@wdl1.UUCP> <132@qucis.UUCP> <2045@hao.UUCP>
Reply-To: philip@axis.UUCP (Philip Peake)
Organization: Axis Digital, 135 rue d'Aguesseau, Boulogne, 92100, FRANCE
Lines: 20

In article <2045@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP writes:
>>  I don't see any reason
>> to write scripts in the C-shell, except for the aforementioned
>> exercising of masochistic tendencies.
>
>  I do. csh(1) has a lot of built-in execution, whereas sh(1) has to
>fork a separate process (test(1)) for every bloody "if" test. Bourne
>shell scripts, on our poor overloaded VAX 750, are slooooooow.
>

Try using a System 5.2 version of sh, it may just make your csh
seem like a snail!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP:	{mcvax,vmucnam,inria}!axis!philip
-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP:	{mcvax,vmucnam,inria}!axis!philip