Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:54:25 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() Message-ID: <20110224225425.GB13490@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20110224234044.0df661c1.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102201027170.56885@wonkity.com> <4D61599E.4040008@gmail.com> <AANLkTinJKcy8NyFzW9=6yKEY%2BF_payQVM108_=B7Gyjr@mail.gmail.com> <loom.20110224T210222-768@post.gmane.org> <AANLkTinQ4MMwWq77k1t-SwqE%2BzPep6VCNS9AKdT_H08b@mail.gmail.com> <loom.20110224T214917-136@post.gmane.org> <AANLkTik88V5Bb2BWM0Kpv3rWfek9_%2BgjqmEt6UbsVjpS@mail.gmail.com> <loom.20110224T220407-811@post.gmane.org> <AANLkTikAB--0Hrw76cbdzgfmeJMPt_N7isaw%2Byn_-QMn@mail.gmail.com> <20110224234044.0df661c1.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:40:44PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:24:37 -0800, Rob Farmer <rfarmer@predatorlabs.net>= wrote: > > > > I've read it before. Who hasn't?=20 >=20 > I haven't. :-) While reading it, just keep this in mind: It's about "programming" in csh. It's not about using csh as an interactive user shell. People who try to use it as "proof" that we should not use csh as an interactive user shell don't get it. > > > > And I find it unconvincing, since it is just a list of shortcomings. > > If those shortcomings don't affect me, why do I care? >=20 > The article basically concentrates on shell PROGRAMMING, and I agree > that programming scripts is not the biggest stength of the C shell. On > the other hand, it's a very good interactive command line interpreter > (as mentioned before) that is, in some regards (mainly driven by very > individual taste), superior to the hyped bash. But it's also worth > mentioning that there are even better shells which combine "the best of > both worlds", like zsh, a shell that many professionals seem to prefer > over the other ones mentioned. I see from this you are not prone to confuse programming with an interactive user shell. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk1m4aEACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVTIACfaoeA+j5bBkaBcSn7FJy6a6ix 2wkAnRflA62s/Ywr/SNIup+YYTRe6IOX =rWj9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110224225425.GB13490>