Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:30:16 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: kc5vdj@yahoo.com, kris@obsecurity.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing... Message-ID: <20010825053016.D17363810@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20010824094600W.jkh@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan Hubbard wrote: > > Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a > > replacement for csh. > > Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention. > This is exactly the sort of detailed feedback that was requested when > we first raised the issue of switching over, and nobody could come up > with any concrete differences that would cause harm, so the deed was > done. We switched for several reasons: 1: csh script interface sucks 2: csh user interface sucks 3: tcsh user interface is one of the better ones. csh is not a serious scripting language and hardly anybody ever uses it as one in scripts that have sufficient complexity to notice the difference. As far as user interfaces go, tcsh is as close to a superset as you can get. That was a step up for the majority of users who actually use it and it is still "close enough" that built-in finger knowledge works as expected. We made "genuine" csh available as a port in case somebody *has* to have it for actual scripting that was impossible to tweak to run under tcsh. (see ports/shells/44bsd-csh). Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010825053016.D17363810>