From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Sep 15 14:00:28 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA13800 for questions-outgoing; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 14:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gatekeeper.fsl.noaa.gov (gatekeeper.fsl.noaa.gov [137.75.131.181]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA13790 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 14:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emu.fsl.noaa.gov (kelly@emu.fsl.noaa.gov [137.75.60.32]) by gatekeeper.fsl.noaa.gov (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA17954; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 21:00:20 GMT Message-Id: <199609152100.VAA17954@gatekeeper.fsl.noaa.gov> Received: by emu.fsl.noaa.gov (1.40.112.4/16.2) id AA167291240; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 15:00:40 -0600 Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 15:00:40 -0600 From: Sean Kelly To: hmmm@alaska.net Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <323A63E2.1156@alaska.net> (message from hmmm on Sat, 14 Sep 1996 00:50:59 -0700) Subject: Re: Easy editors Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >>>>> hmmm writes: > aliasing is better. you can do that with sh also! just add >alias > "sh cmd sequence"< in profile or whatever. It's amazing what I can continue to learn: so FreeBSD's sh support aliases, even. What a wonderful world! :-) > ps. why do i see so much of csh? from everything i read and hear > it broken from the design end on up and it's only benefit is a C > like inequality op? I think tcsh (and csh in a pinch) makes a perfectly fine interactive shell but sh isn't as nicely suited for interactivity. Likewise, csh/tcsh is a terrible scripting shell; but sh is great for scripts. Be sure to read "Csh programming considered harmful" at: http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-faq/unix-faq-shell-csh-whynot.html So, my login shell is /usr/local/bin/tcsh. But all the scripts I write are /bin/sh scripts (plus a bunch of tcl and perl scripts for good measure). Take care. --k