🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <17937@csli.Stanford.EDU> poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill
Poser) writes:

| In article <14378@ulysses.att.com> kpv@ulysses.att.com (Phong Vo[drew]) writes:
| >csh didn't make it because it wasn't compatible to sh.
| 
| Hmm. I certainly don't know the statistics, but I don't think I've EVER
| met anybody outside of AT&T who uses sh rather than csh. I used sh
| when I was at Bell, and almost immediately switched to csh when I came
| to Stanford. Is it really correct to say that "csh didn't make it"?

I dunno, I've use /bin/sh as my one and only interactive shell.  I use
bash nowadays, with ksh occasionally, which are both upwards
compatible extensions of /bin/sh.  I also routinely type in 10-20 line
pipelines and loops directly into the shell without resorting to shell
scripts.  What bothers me the most about the csh is the fact that it
is not a language, you continually have to remember, oh yes, you must
format the if with just the right number of spaces because the csh is
without a clue.

--
Michael Meissner	email: meissner@osf.org		phone: 617-621-8861
Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142

Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?