From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 24 23:43:31 2011 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 2B43B106567A for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:43:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 839273@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A7D8FC1B for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwaa18 with SMTP id a18so1109461gwa.17 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:43:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U4whwzmYK6uTNJakDE5h8oX3HUg+1Vjx9oTUoLFGORY=; b=D/qvPN603ZlmA7f90zZj2a9eMzoBwty7H2E3JSUK1YC1gZo5MshmrrZzvxqCyZxCqt fPMRlnyXCLMLRMraeYaoZkfamJmW8UL+s4uwye5DqO5chniFPAElVEbRFONvR4xGsaDV SVRIkR0BP70aHIpkaO8teJZYwajpcUdssfezw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Y2fZTesBVnc6L4A5W5NwvHAJjiyT26vlwXrBT9hmayBu9k9KwXmHfNLNp1OueQAT25 PeI/WarW4OxOuqF///rBRPzyyKD7Jm2b9cVosL9MLuPFG82cFe6/f0xrP91r1Y0cLpaQ gzg+jJ95LSWDeeN48LYuxelxMcWF6PeOHbWxM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.83.7 with SMTP id k7mr2806687ybl.68.1298590975633; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:42:55 -0800 (PST) Sender: 839273@gmail.com Received: by 10.150.215.21 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:42:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110224232404.GA13838@guilt.hydra> References: <20110224234044.0df661c1.freebsd@edvax.de> <20110224225425.GB13490@guilt.hydra> <20110225001301.e4f6d95f.freebsd@edvax.de> <21929_1298589484_4D66E72C_21929_309_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499BD35499F@WADPMBXV0.waddell.com> <20110224232404.GA13838@guilt.hydra> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:12:55 -0430 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EtwN9IXSiQ9pxekYLI0g1tJQIRE Message-ID: From: Andres Perera To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Chad Perrin Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: 839273@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:43:31 -0000 On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:00:11PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten wrote= : >> > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. =C2=A0It= does >> > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. =C2=A0It does= n't >> > require any upgrades, ever. =C2=A0It's 100% secure. =C2=A0It doesn't u= se any >> > memory or other resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; >> > it just "magically" works. >> >> you can ignore all you want, but there are shells of different quality, >> and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway > > You keep saying that. =C2=A0Maybe it's just personal taste. > > >> >> there are no interactive features in csh that could justify its >> inclusion over mksh, and the code is regarded as horrible (as per author >> and people with eyes) because of the adhoc parser >> >> tcsh people fixed a few bugs, but that doesn't change that the intrinsic >> design is a mess. the tcsh also added stupid redundant builtins like >> ls-F >> >> mksh also has stupid builtins like cat, but it makes up for it by being >> an extremely solid shell and overall more polished than the horrible >> turd that is (t)csh > > So far, your complaints translate to "Well, sure, for every concrete > (t)csh problem I've identified, mksh has similar problems, but it's > better because I like it." you are an obtuse person the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing their efforts on something solid *you* are the one that's dodging questions history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a "csh thing" anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) what's the justification for ls-F according to the manual? "it's faster than ls(1)", which amounts to nothing in modern times and is a clear case of over-optimization what's the justification for cat builtin in mksh? the read builtin partly implements it, so it doesn't even represent new code addition it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about, like most of the people on this thread > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] >