From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 25 00:03:31 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 93C49106564A for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:03:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.60]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5BFFA8FC0A for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 13005 invoked by uid 0); 25 Feb 2011 00:03:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by oproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2011 00:03:30 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=apotheon.com; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Identified-User; b=KnLoObfiHcWJa6Xkz84Qik15mHH/evY4eCRfpZlsMiCIuvOMMeMMKJD4GfZuhC19d+jqwiIJlrYe6/2U7feRerbPbz9WWLzABY+CDs+2b1GA+X58j24NNbG0fGLkt4ZT; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=kukaburra.hydra) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Psl9d-0002jk-Cz for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:03:30 -0700 Received: by kukaburra.hydra (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:52:43 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:52:43 -0700 From: Chad Perrin To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Message-ID: <20110224235243.GA14035@guilt.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.org} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with ren@apotheon.org} Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() 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, 25 Feb 2011 00:03:31 -0000 --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > 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." >=20 > you are an obtuse person You have an attitude problem. I will only hold that against *you*, though, and not against your *argument*, just as soon as you present one that is worth the time I spent reading it. >=20 > the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code Good for him. >=20 > the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing > their efforts on something solid I take it "wonky" is some technical term with which I am not familiar. >=20 > *you* are the one that's dodging questions Really? What question did I dodge? If you repeat it, and it is not completely full of crap, I'll be happy to address it directly. >=20 > 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 What does that have to do with it? I never said otherwise. >=20 > every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition > like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) I guess that depends on how you define "feature" -- but I don't use csh without the t much, anyway, so that statement is not directly applicable to the interactive shell I have been using most of the time. Also . . . feature counts are not measures of quality. >=20 > 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 Maybe so. >=20 > what's the justification for cat builtin in mksh? the read builtin > partly implements it, so it doesn't even represent new code addition I'm not sure why you're bringing these things up. "They both have instances of the same basic mistake -- implementing functionality that already exists in standard utilities." Well, great. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with mksh being better in all ways. >=20 > 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 I have to wonder if you even understand your own arguments when you say things like this. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk1m70sACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKXFlQCgr7wnJeWEJeUbumfiu9COCRWM QvgAoIKHP0irjfiAvRMF55qr4jvG7PVN =nHLI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--