Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:52:43 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() Message-ID: <20110224235243.GA14035@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik0r5skC0vn0OAGX1_MQDMdsrTK3943iF_rwNzD@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTik88V5Bb2BWM0Kpv3rWfek9_%2BgjqmEt6UbsVjpS@mail.gmail.com> <loom.20110224T220407-811@post.gmane.org> <AANLkTikAB--0Hrw76cbdzgfmeJMPt_N7isaw%2Byn_-QMn@mail.gmail.com> <20110224234044.0df661c1.freebsd@edvax.de> <20110224225425.GB13490@guilt.hydra> <20110225001301.e4f6d95f.freebsd@edvax.de> <21929_1298589484_4D66E72C_21929_309_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499BD35499F@WADPMBXV0.waddell.com> <AANLkTinu1KB=Lz7rsH5TiZXHr61gH8AWFP=quJ9=8iJH@mail.gmail.com> <20110224232404.GA13838@guilt.hydra> <AANLkTik0r5skC0vn0OAGX1_MQDMdsrTK3943iF_rwNzD@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--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 <perrin@apotheon.com> 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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110224235243.GA14035>