Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!diku!dkuug!ambush!kimcm
From: kimcm@ambush.UUCP (Kim Chr. Madsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re^2: Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution?
Keywords: csh==Berkeley shell, should it be in System V or not?
Message-ID: <762@ambush.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 88 09:04:04 GMT
References: <2599@usceast.UUCP> <2601@usceast.UUCP> <10857@steinmetz.ge.com>
Organization: AmbraSoft A/S (Denmark)
Lines: 52

To my experience, the following observations holds true here.  We are
running System V, allthouh most of us comes from a BSD environment.
We have /bin/sh, /bin/csh, /bin/ksh and a /usr/bin/vsh on-line.  Users
wants to use the csh as their interactive shell, using sh as their
tool for making scripts speculating whether ksh is better than csh for
interactive use, but settles with csh since it is known in depth, and
nobody wants to touch the vsh.

And of course the Bourne shell and the C-shell is the only two shells
with a large user base and therefore more PD scripts, and they're
faily standard although the Bourne shell is a bit more standard than
the C shell.

Pros and cons of the shells (subjective opinion):

Bourne Shell (System V Version):
	+ Fast execution of scripts
	+ Easy language conception
	+ Easy file-descriptor manipulation ( 1>a 2>b 3>&1 etc.)
	+ Functions (added modularity of scripts)
	- No easy alias mechanism (functions are inadequate)
	- No history mechanism
	- Offers only a one-time start-up script (.profile (/etc/profile))

C Shell:
	+ History mechanism with redo and history manipulation.
	+ Superior interactive automatic scripts (.cshrc, .login & .logout)
	+ Good aliasing mechanism
	- Bad programming interface (non-intuitive).
	- Slow execution of scripts
	- Missing functions
	- Bad file-descriptor manipulation.

Korn Shell:
	+ Superior history mechanism with (vi/emacs interface available)
	+ Almost Bourne Shell compatable language plus extensions
	+ Aliasing mechanism (although not so intuitive as the csh)
	- Inadequate automatical scripts (.kshrc, .profile)
	- Does not have a large user base
	
Visual Shell:
	+ Completely different from traditional shell types
	+ Easy to learn to use (unless you're used to traditional shells)
	- Troublesome to get to do anything advanced easy
	- Slow execution and building of commands
	- Offers no programming interface (relies on another shell)	

Kim Chr. Madsen, AmbraSoft A/S, Rojelskaer 15, DK-2840 Holte (Denmark)
UUCP: kimcm@ambush.dk, PHONE: +45 2424 111, FAX: +45 2423 090

Your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. 
					-- The Bible, Joel, II:28