Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: csh vs sh (was: fixing rm *)
Message-ID: <676@auspex.UUCP>
Date: 10 Dec 88 22:36:33 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> <114@gsgpyr.hac.com>
Reply-To: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 11

>CSH:
>   2X faster (on the only benchmark we attempted)

Err, umm, it's been *slower* on the things I tried; of course, the
Bourne shell in question was an S5 Bourne shell, so it had things like
"echo" and "test"/"[" built in (and may have just generally been faster).

>SH:
>   portable to Berkeley and ATT installations

That's the main benefit I see, and is the high-order bit for me.