On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:00:11PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten <ggat...@waddell.com> wrote: >> > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. It does >> > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. It doesn't >> > require any upgrades, ever. It's 100% secure. It doesn't use any >> > memory or other resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; >> > it just "magically" works. >> >> 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. > > >> >> 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 >> >> 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 >> >> 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."
you are an obtuse person the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing their efforts on something solid *you* are the one that's dodging questions history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a "csh thing" anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) what's the justification for ls-F according to the manual? "it's faster than ls(1)", which amounts to nothing in modern times and is a clear case of over-optimization what's the justification for cat builtin in mksh? the read builtin partly implements it, so it doesn't even represent new code addition it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about, like most of the people on this thread > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] > _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
