[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/11]
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:08:15 +0000, Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx>
wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 15:29 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
> > tcsh is hateful because csh is hateful as a scripting language.
> >
> > As an interactive shell it's no more hateful than any other.
>
> That unfortunately is a flawed argument.
I don't think so.
> As long as tcsh exists and people use it, people will write scripts in
> it. Even if they are just login scripts which get gradually extended
> people will always be stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot if
> you give them a gun and aim it down for them. (Heck, we've even seen
> that in this thread.)
But this isn't restricted to shell-scripting. Any langues will do.
Even PASCAL, COBOL, Fortran or ADA
> If you use a different shell for interactive use than scripting its just
> another unnecessary language to learn, and occasional users will end up
> making stupid mistakes when they keep switching between the two.
Inherent at being a sysadmin. Even if in-house policy means you have to write
scripts in strict bourne shell, there is always third party software that
comes with any other shell/script language you didn't know yet.
--
H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0 & 10.1, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52