[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/10]
On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 10:06 +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:31:34 +0000, Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> > wrote: > > P.P.P.P.S. Why are you using tcsh anyway? With a choice of perfectly > > usable (if not, unfortunately, actually perfect) shells such as zsh or > > bash, there's no excuse for using a csh derivative. Heck, there's even > > ksh-93 if you're really keen. > > You're a youngster. That's obvious. Alas, not so young as I was. > I use the tcsh, and am always a bit disappointed if it is not installed on a > system. Back in the days there was only 'sh' and 'csh', the choice was easy. > With the limited possibilities of 'sh', the choice for csh was a simple one. > Then came better versions for both: 'ksh' and 'tcsh', and - coming from csh - > that choice was simple too. Yes, I was a user of tcsh until I made the switch to zsh version 2. Well worth the few hours it took me back in the early-mid 90s. > So, if you are raised with bash, you are probably familiar with it very nice > features. No not me. I remember bash when it was supposed to be just a free replacement for the bourne shell, and not a complex interactive shell. (The linux crowd would have been much better off keeping bash for scripts and using zsh for interactive, yet another case of NIH syndrome.) > I don't really care where my shell is located, as long as it is in my default > $PATH. I care exactly where the shell is located because otherwise scripts just cannot be made portable across machines(*): #!$(whence ksh) just doesn't work for some reason. (And no, nasty hacks using 'env' are not my thing.) I guess you don't care where tcsh is located because you've got enough sense never to write a script in it. Best place for tcsh is /dev/null and do the world a favour. (*) Yes, perl I hate you. /usr/bin/perl, /usr/local/bin/perl, /opt/somethingorother/where/the/fuck/have/you/gone/now/perl. It's a shame really, perl scripts should be some of the most portable, except they're not, and for the most trivially absurd reason. Cheers, Martin.There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52