Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:24:04 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() Message-ID: <20110224232404.GA13838@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinu1KB=Lz7rsH5TiZXHr61gH8AWFP=quJ9=8iJH@mail.gmail.com> References: <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> <20110224225425.GB13490@guilt.hydra> <20110225001301.e4f6d95f.freebsd@edvax.de> <21929_1298589484_4D66E72C_21929_309_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499BD35499F@WADPMBXV0.waddell.com> <AANLkTinu1KB=Lz7rsH5TiZXHr61gH8AWFP=quJ9=8iJH@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:00:11PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten <Ggatten@waddell.com> wrote: > > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. =A0It does > > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. =A0It doesn't > > require any upgrades, ever. =A0It's 100% secure. =A0It doesn't use any > > memory or other resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; > > it just "magically" works. >=20 > you can ignore all you want, but there are shells of different quality, > and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway You keep saying that. Maybe it's just personal taste. >=20 > there are no interactive features in csh that could justify its > inclusion over mksh, and the code is regarded as horrible (as per author > and people with eyes) because of the adhoc parser >=20 > tcsh people fixed a few bugs, but that doesn't change that the intrinsic > design is a mess. the tcsh also added stupid redundant builtins like > ls-F >=20 > mksh also has stupid builtins like cat, but it makes up for it by being > an extremely solid shell and overall more polished than the horrible > turd that is (t)csh So far, your complaints translate to "Well, sure, for every concrete (t)csh problem I've identified, mksh has similar problems, but it's better because I like it." --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk1m6JQACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUmqgCbBu8P7a31cPCl3zi2s+rnGUiV RDcAnRkZP8WHxfM6WZK+bBiXEHjlmMOb =7RTz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110224232404.GA13838>