On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 07:42:35PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
> >I ran across this today:
> >
> > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
> >
> >Title:
> > Csh Programming Considered Harmful
> >
> >I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
> >tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
> 
> I like csh/tcsh as a shell, but don't use it to run scripts.
> 
> /bin/sh is the One True Shell Script Interpreter; heathen bashisms are 
> just as bad as csh constructs.
> 
> When you can't use a higher-level language (Perubython), use shell 
> scripts.  But stick to plain sh, because if it's useful you'll probably 
> end up having to convert it to sh anyway.

Hmm -- fair answer.  I was kind of thinking that on FreeBSD I should
maybe do such work in csh as the standard shell, but it occurs to me that
I'd probably be pretty hard-pressed to find a FreeBSD system without sh
on it.

. . . and I *do* use Perubython (or rather, Perubyl) for anything complex
enough to use more than one or two conditionals in it.  I haven't met a
shell (other than one derived from a general purpose programming
language) yet that doesn't annoy me beyond that level of complexity for
scripting.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
John W. Russell: "People point. Sometimes that's just easier. They also use
words. Sometimes that's just easier. For the same reasons that pointing has
not made words obsolete, there will always be command lines."
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to