🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14378@ulysses.att.com> kpv@ulysses.att.com (Phong Vo[drew]) writes:
> >     Kolstad's Konjecture: A new programming language will enjoy widespread
> >     success in the UNIX community in direct proportion to that language's
> >     resemblance to C; compare the relative success of awk, perl, and C++ 
> >     with that of icon, scheme, and smalltalk.

> Partial counter-example: csh.

Why? CSH was touted as a shell with "c-like" syntax, but it isn't really
anything like C. It's just more C-like than the version 6 shell... a shell
with a basic-like syntax.

If anything, the bourne shell feels more natural to my c-trained fingers.

> csh didn't make it because it wasn't compatible to sh.

CSH predated the bourne shell.

At one time in Berkeley there were three options: the Version 6 shell, a
weird bird called the Pascal shell, and the C shell. If the bourne shell
had been available the C shell would have been stillbourne.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"