Re: csh question: foreach
From: Kenny McCormack (gazelle_at_yin.interaccess.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:16:59 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >Out of curiosity, what compelling command line features
>> >does ksh offer that bash and tcsh don't?
>> The answer is: nothing.
>Not quite. For example, I frequently use command lines that redirect
>stderr to /dev/null, so I can just see stdout. I'm not aware that you
>can do that in csh/tcsh without having to start subshells etc.
The key word is "compelling".
And "compelling" is in the eye of the beholder.
>> The point of this eternal war is that those who use an sh-like shell
>> (ksh, ksh93, bash, etc) as their interactive shell are simply making
>> a tradeoff. They are sacrificing some measure of comfort/efficiency
>> for the sake of consistency. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
>> We all make our choices.
>Consistency is a good thing. What kind of comfort/efficiency do you
>see is lost with ksh or bash?
They don't work as well as tcsh does.
>It's been a long time since I've used csh, but when I found out about ksh
>I recall being amazed at how much easier it made command line work.
Apples & Oranges.
ksh is better at command line editing than csh (which has none)
but tcsh is much better than ksh. Some people seem to be OK with bash's
command line editing facilities, but, IMHO, tcsh is better than bash.
Needless to say, comfort is also in the eyes of the beholder.