Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: CLI/shells
Message-ID: <8805052308.AA05229@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 5 May 88 23:08:37 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 23

:WShell runs without the CLI.  So does AmigaShell, the rumored shell
:in the rumored 1.3 workbench release.  Probably more too; these
:just spring to mind.
:
:If you're talking about stuff like Matt's shell, your talking first
:generation shell vs second generation.  Of course Matt's is still THE
:shell for Csh compatability; while WShell and AmigaShell try to
:maintain some CLI compatibility (like #? wildcards, semicolon to start
:a comment, etc).

	I'm flattered, but actually, my shell is no where near csh in
terms of script compatibility... no history or string modifiers, for instance.
I'm glad people are picking up on the shell idea ... can't wait to see what
C-A has for us in 1.3 .  I originally wrote my shell for four, and only
four reasons:

	(1) history (don't have to retype commands I want to repeat)
	(2) aliases (don't have to remember long argument strings)
	(3) get rid of that damn blasted #? wildcard crap and replace it 
	    with something more general (*/?). (ala unix)
	(4) internal shell commands.  Not external, Not rez'd, Not
	    resident ... internal and hardcoded.  Being just subroutines
	    such commands usually taken about a dozen longwords of memory
	    and have no overhead.