Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Why csh still wins (was Re: Thank you, Bill Joy!)
Message-ID: <994@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 7 Sep 88 21:44:53 GMT
References: <2910@dunkshot.mips.COM> <194@cvbnet2.UUCP>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 14

In article <194@cvbnet2.UUCP> aperez@cvbnet2.UUCP (Arturo Perez Ext.) writes:
>I must admit. I have NEVER been able to really use the Cshell
>in any meaningful manner in terms of scripts.  The Bourne shells
>intuitive language structure wins for me every time.

I pretty well remember (watch me not go look it up :-() something
in the man pages for csh and sh that remarks the main difference
between them is that sh is more suited for scripts while csh
is more suited for interactive shells.

				--Blair
				  "Two cents still buys
				   a lot of kibbitz around
				   these parts..."