Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!agate!pasteur!ames!elroy!hacgate!gsgpyr!devnet4!jrich
From: jrich@devnet4.hac.com (john richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: csh vs sh (was: fixing rm *)
Message-ID: <114@gsgpyr.hac.com>
Date: 6 Dec 88 19:30:29 GMT
References: <1812@ndsuvax.UUCP> <717@quintus.UUCP> <6518@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <723@quintus.UUCP> <6550@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <1457@unisoft.UUCP> <754@quintus.UUCP>
Sender: news@gsgpyr.hac.com
Reply-To: jrich@devnet4.UUCP (john richardson)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company, Group Systems Group, Fullerton, Ca.
Lines: 36

In article <754@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <1457@unisoft.UUCP> greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf) writes:
>
>>If you're going to write a csh script,
>>you're better off prefacing it with the line
>>#!/bin/csh -f
>
>Indeed you are.  You're even better off not writing Csh scripts.

and then...

>Well, everything is subject to debate.

Has there been a past discussion of writing scripts for csh vs. sh?

I see some advantages both ways:

CSH:
   2X faster (on the only benchmark we attempted)
   more builtins, less process generation (i.e., test, basename)
   :r,:e,:t suffixes to variables
   we are committed to Berkeley software so csh is portable enough
   I use csh for interactive work

SH:
   trap statement
   "| while read x" construct
	easy stderr redirection
   portable to Berkeley and ATT installations

John Richardson
jrich@devnet4.hac.com
Hughes Aircraft Company, Fullerton, Ca.
(714) 732-5588
Subject to the usual disclaimers as well as
all failings normally associated with the efforts of man.