On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > I've never liked bash, for some obscure > reason.
The thing that mostly turned me off from the Bourne shell initially is that the syntax is completely alien to everything else, while (t)csh of course mirror C (along with half the other languages in the universe) and thus seems much more familiar. Bourne has lots of usually-weirdly-named keywords, whereas (t)csh uses a more traditional mostly-punctuation syntax. A lot of common Bourne idioms also depend on the reader having an understanding of the shell's grammar (especially the difference between a command and a pipeline) and syntax, whereas the nature of (t)csh makes most things a little more self-evident. And, of course, since you can do so much more in a Bourne shell, the reader is also more likely to encounter stuff he doesn't understand. Thus (t)csh seem friendlier, easier. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
