Thread View: comp.sys.next.programmer
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by The Iguana
Wed, 06 Jan 1993 15:50
Re: tcsh
Author: The Iguana
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 15:50
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 15:50
17 lines
1150 bytes
1150 bytes
:> Hello. I have seen several tcsh shells available on the net. Is :>there any particularly compelling reason to use tcsh vs csh vs sh? :> :> Thanks :> Jake Cshell is generally accepted over Bourne shell (sh) for the fact that it allows shell programming in the C language. TCshell is often used because it allows for WATCHes to be set. For instance, I use TCshell because I can leave a terminal window open and it will update me as to who is logging into and off my machine. -- Paul D Thompson ----------------------------------------- "Never regret" iguana@mik.uky.edu (NeXTMail accepted) University of Kentucky Hardware/Software Consultant Most Recent Purchase: Fender San Miguel LH (yes I'm left-handed)
Re: tcsh
Author: Art Isbell
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 19:44
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 19:44
31 lines
2080 bytes
2080 bytes
In article <1993Jan6.155021.23331@ms.uky.edu> iguana@mik.uky.edu writes: >:> Hello. I have seen several tcsh shells available on the net. Is >:>there any particularly compelling reason to use tcsh vs csh vs sh? >:> >:> Thanks >:> Jake > >Cshell is generally accepted over Bourne shell (sh) for the fact that it >allows shell programming in the C language. TCshell is often used because >it allows for WATCHes to be set. For instance, I use TCshell because I can >leave a terminal window open and it will update me as to who is logging >into and off my machine. As he enters what is certainly a religious issue... But Bourne shell is accepted by many as the preferable shell script syntax despite its syntactical differences from the C language. But the Bourne shell is rather archaic relative the the C shell for interactive use. The resolution to this dilemma has been adopted by the Free Software Foundation (the GNU project) under the guise of bash (Bourne-Again SHell - you gotta love those guys :-) which offers a set of C shell and Korn shell features, but uses a Bourne shell syntax superset. When considering why Bourne shell syntax might be preferable to C shell, I think its important to realize that the GNU project could have based its shell on either and chose the Bourne shell. -- Art Isbell Cubic Solutions NeXT Registered Developer #745 NeXT software development and consulting NeXTmail: isbell@cats.UCSC.EDU Voice: (408)335-1154 USmail: 95018-9442 Fax: (408)335-2515
Re: tcsh
Author: Sean Lamont
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 21:05
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 21:05
21 lines
1644 bytes
1644 bytes
In article <1993Jan6.155021.23331@ms.uky.edu> iguana@mik.uky.edu writes: >Cshell is generally accepted over Bourne shell (sh) for the fact that it >allows shell programming in the C language. TCshell is often used because >it allows for WATCHes to be set. For instance, I use TCshell because I can >leave a terminal window open and it will update me as to who is logging >into and off my machine. > What a totally bogus statement. Any reasonable shell programmer uses bourne shell just because it's more flexible. And cshell does NOT allow shell programming in the C language, just some of the syntax is shared. tcsh has a number of features that are desirable: Command-history scrollback, tab filename completion, watches, periodically executed commands, date/time/cwd in the prompt string, and many others. -- Sean T. Lamont | "Don't oppress me, It's zeno@genetics.washington.edu | 'computer of color!' " lamont@abstractsoft.com |_______________________________ Abstract Software
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads