Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:06:23 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful. Message-ID: <20071214070623.GC20150@demeter.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20071214022529.GA2571@kobe.laptop> References: <20071214010542.GA19553@demeter.hydra> <20071214022529.GA2571@kobe.laptop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:25:30AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote: > > I ran across this today: > > > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ > > > > Title: > > Csh Programming Considered Harmful > > > > I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies > > to tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert). > > Most of the points made in the FAQ about scripting large `applications' > with csh ring a bell for me. Now, having said that, /bin/sh is nice for > small to medium-sized scripts, but there is a certain point where even > sh(1) becomes annoying. > > Do you have any _particular_ parts of the csh-whynot article that you > would like to discuss, or this is a free for all flame? :) It's a free-for-all -- but not really a flame. I was looking for some general opinions and insights on the matter. As I said, I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert (though, in general, I find I like it more than bash as my command shell). I don't generally like using any of the common shells for "real" programming, anyway. Anything beyond just automating a few commands so I don't get RSI, I tend to go with Perl or Ruby for scripting. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Kent Beck: "I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java. I just didn't know it would be called Ruby."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071214070623.GC20150>