Re: Bourne Shell Programming Considered Harmful

Article View: comp.unix.shell

Article #57

#57

From: Harald.Eikrem
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1992 19:12

13 lines
1007 bytes

! > The command syntax really sucks, man.
!
! But it does _work_, in direct contrast to [t]csh.

Now this time, is advocating Bourne Shell part of your plan :>?

Well, I'd say it does NOT work very well, especially when having to deal
with that Bourne shell DEC has been providing their customers with over the
years in Ultrix.  Has it been updated at all since 4.2BSD --> Ultrix 1.1?

And for you Tom C., same thing goes for Convex Computer.

  ~~h

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1992Nov3.191253*Harald.Eikrem@delab.sintef.no>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!ugle.unit.no!news

References: <Bx4Myp.Czr@unix.amherst.edu> <1992Nov3.125655.16320@prl.dec.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.questions
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!ugle.unit.no!news
From: Harald.Eikrem@delab.sintef.no
Subject: Re: Bourne Shell Programming Considered Harmful
In-Reply-To: boyd@prl.dec.com's message of Tue, 3 Nov 1992 12:56:55 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.191253*Harald.Eikrem@delab.sintef.no>
Sender: news@ugle.unit.no (NetNews Administrator)
Organization: SINTEF DELAB, Trondheim, Norway.
References: <Bx4Myp.Czr@unix.amherst.edu> <1992Nov3.125655.16320@prl.dec.com>
Date: 3 Nov 92 19:12:53
Lines: 13

Reply to Parent Message