csh vs tcsh

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

I fully agree with you. I have some scripts that are well over 15 years
old. Some are csh scripts, but most are plain Bourne. 
Both BASH and KSH carry SH forward. Most Unix and Linux systems have a
large number of plain sh scripts. Most of the startup scripts are Bourne
because that was the only shell that was guaranteed to be available on a
Unix system. But even on this, there were some variations of the Bourne
shell. 
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:06:23 -0500
dsr at tao.merseine.nu wrote:

> Traditionally, csh and derivatives are not well-suited for scripting.
> The appropriate portable scripting shells are plain Bourne shell (sh),
> and Korn shell (ksh).
> 
> The Bourne Again Shell (bash) retains backwards compatibility with sh,
> while providing the modern features of the csh and zsh in a stable
> environment.
> 
> Small sh scripts are among the easiest, most portable code to write,
> and often used to bootstrap large code bases. For example, Oracle uses
> shell scripts to prepare a Java environment for its installer to run
> in.
> 
> A random user has no particular reason to learn more than one shell;
> but it is a perq of the sysadmins to argue about the relative features
> of their preferred environments.
> 
> -dsr-
> 
> -- 
> Network engineer looking for work in Boston area.
> Resume at http://tao.merseine.nu/~dsr/
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 


-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20030225/f77e6e20/attachment.sig>