Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 22:00:41 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which is the basic differences between the shells? Message-ID: <20100607040041.GB29350@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20100606183258.GC46089@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> References: <AANLkTinG745GjOaZKLT1TfKgqVi6VHt9-ciHWQUY57VT@mail.gmail.com> <20100605231715.GD69990@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <20100606163136.GA27788@guilt.hydra> <20100606175043.GA46089@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <20100606182148.GB28095@guilt.hydra> <20100606183258.GC46089@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:32:58AM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > > > I was a tcsh user before switching to zsh. But I was raised on the > Bourne Shell, and used Korn shell a lot in the 90s. The C-shell versions > of control flow commands always tripped me up, even though they're > arguably more sane -- just because the sh versions flow off the > fingertips. So sh-compatibility was my main reason, but I like the > features of csh that zsh cherry-picked. Given my preference for (t)csh syntax over sh syntax for an interactive shell, I guess that doesn't give me a whole lot of motivation to try it out. Another response to my question discusses some other benefits, though. . . . Thanks for your perspective. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkwMbukACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVzLQCeI0s/NeeGqcjfbiIq/rHBqusn tmIAnRZWXaMaF7i0MYGiu3XmZotpfzFF =h1sT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100607040041.GB29350>