Re: rm - Arguments too long
From: Doug Freyburger (dfreybur_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 04/30/03
- Next message: Alan Coopersmith: "Re: xhost and shot screen"
- Previous message: cljlk: "xhost and shot screen"
- In reply to: joshua: "Re: rm - Arguments too long"
- Next in thread: Lon Stowell: "Re: rm - Arguments too long"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 30 Apr 2003 07:42:34 -0700
joshua's top posting corrected:
> Rich Teer wrote:
> > Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
>
> > > Maybe the person "who was once one of the major driving forces behind
> > > both BSD Unix and csh" got bored by it? :-)
>
> > For all we know, Bill Joy still uses csh at Sun anyway! :-)
> > Choice is good...
>
> correct me if I am wrong, but BIll Joy sounds like the person who wrote
> "vi".
Correct. And csh and a number of other programs.
Objections to csh is scripting make sense. Objections to csh for interactive
all seem to be based on the scripting objections, and are therefore invalid.
Would anyone care to explain an objection the interactive csh use that doesn't
boil down to "scripting bad, scripting identical to interactive, therefore
interactive bad"?
The one thing I miss about csh is "!! ; !!". Since I switched to ksh I code
"while true ; do ..." a lot and control-C out of the loop when I've finished
monitoring whatever's going on in the background. Ksh history blows in
comparison to csh, which isn't surprising for a shell designed for scripting.
- Next message: Alan Coopersmith: "Re: xhost and shot screen"
- Previous message: cljlk: "xhost and shot screen"
- In reply to: joshua: "Re: rm - Arguments too long"
- Next in thread: Lon Stowell: "Re: rm - Arguments too long"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
