Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:28:30 -0500 From: "Michael P. Soulier" <msoulier@digitaltorque.ca> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful. Message-ID: <20071216232830.GD5874@piglet.digitaltorque.ca> In-Reply-To: <20071214033333.GA3455@kobe.laptop> References: <20071214010542.GA19553@demeter.hydra> <20071214022529.GA2571@kobe.laptop> <4761F17F.9030908@chuckr.org> <20071214033333.GA3455@kobe.laptop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--ylS2wUBXLOxYXZFQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 14/12/07 Giorgos Keramidas said: > Tcsh is a fine shell. I'm using it all the time (that's how I found out > that a buglet reported by Kris Kennaway a few months ago was indeed a > bug which I could reproduce too). I always found csh/tcsh aliases annoying, since there are no shell function= s. I also found the shell redirection awkward.=20 It's ok otherwise, but I've since become addicted to bash. Mind you, I'm su= re some tcsh users could point out some features that bash doesn't have.=20 Mike --=20 Michael P. Soulier <msoulier@digitaltorque.ca> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." --Albert Einstein --ylS2wUBXLOxYXZFQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHZbSeKGqCc1vIvggRApfRAJ0bFX9yu9XX98dK0/DdtRHhNYX7VwCgtNE8 4g/5ql+h5/x6f2iDI1wJZBg= =lSvx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ylS2wUBXLOxYXZFQ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071216232830.GD5874>