From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 14 01:16:47 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1206E16A41B for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:16:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerrymc@gizmo.acns.msu.edu) Received: from gizmo.acns.msu.edu (gizmo.acns.msu.edu [35.8.1.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4B113C459 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:16:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerrymc@gizmo.acns.msu.edu) Received: from gizmo.acns.msu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gizmo.acns.msu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lBE1GE9M018579; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:16:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jerrymc@gizmo.acns.msu.edu) Received: (from jerrymc@localhost) by gizmo.acns.msu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id lBE1GENb018578; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:16:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jerrymc) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:16:14 -0500 From: Jerry McAllister To: Mike Jeays Message-ID: <20071214011614.GA18559@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> References: <20071214010542.GA19553@demeter.hydra> <200712132012.32729.mike.jeays@rogers.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200712132012.32729.mike.jeays@rogers.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:16:47 -0000 On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:12:32PM -0500, Mike Jeays wrote: > On December 13, 2007 08:05:42 pm Chad Perrin wrote: > > I ran across this today: > > > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ > > > > Title: > > Csh Programming Considered Harmful > > > > I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to > > tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert). > > As you can see, it is 11 years old, but still good advice. For interactive > use, tcsh is not too bad, but for writing scripts of any length, sh or bash > are considered better tools. For code that will run anywhere, stick to the > sh subset. > > Bash has all the features one is likely to need for interactive use > as well, and one could make a good case for it being the 'standard' shell > now. Here it is. I find bash to be ugly and hate it for interactive use. I would rather just use /bin/sh. ////jerry > > -- > Mike Jeays > http://www.jeays.ca > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"