> > That said, it was easier (to me) to write full-on apps and utilities in > > DCL than sh or csh. > > [...] Fortunately, most folks seem to > agree and csh is pretty niche these days. That's not to say there aren't > very enthusiastic users of csh, too.
*tcsh*, yes. I now find it very difficult to use vanilla csh, even though (being a product of the University of California) that was the first shell I ever used as an undergraduate. > > It would be a fairer comparison to develop a complex app in Perl vs DCL > > (Perl would win, but it has a lot going for it). > > Feature wise, I don't see much of a comparison. Perl would trounce DCL in > a comparison involving functionality. It's not a fair fight or apples to > apples in my mind at all. Plus, Perl isn't a CLI interpreter (though I > suppose you could try it that way). DCL is. Hence, I'd compare it to shell > script. However, you don't have as many opportunities to write line-noise > in DCL (joke!). :-) TMTOWTDI. (Actually having written full apps in Perl.) ObOnTopic: I've always found DCL too damn wordy, but I appreciate its precision. I keep a VAXstation 3100 around just to remind myself "how the other half live." -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- He who Laughs, Lasts. ------------------------------------------------------