Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:31:05 -0700 From: Chip Camden <sterling@camdensoftware.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which is the basic differences between the shells? Message-ID: <20100607163105.GA2102@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <20100607040041.GB29350@guilt.hydra> 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> <20100607040041.GB29350@guilt.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 06 2010 22:00, Chad Perrin wrote: > 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. > My pleasure, Chad. If I had learned csh first, I'd probably stick with tcsh myself. I'd also like to publicly thank you on this list for encouraging me to try FreeBSD. I absolutely love it. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | camdensoftware.com | chipstips.com | chipsquips.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100607163105.GA2102>