>>> ksh may have some issues but it's still lightyears ahead of csh.
>> This is a matter of opinion.
> No, it isn't really.

As stated it gives no hint what the metric in question is, which makes
it more like "meaningless" than "opinion".

> Sure there's tcsh, but has it really added anything fundamental
> (beyond command-line editing, of course) that its users now use
> widely and agree is essential for all "csh"-like shells?

Not that I know of - but in my opinion, that weakens, rather than
strengthens, your argument, because it means that csh is satisfactory
as it stands, rather than needing constant improvement.

If there were no tcsh users, it would be plausible that it is not that
it's defective but that it's unused, but that isn't the case.

csh works very well indeed for its target, interactive use.  It's a
horrible programming language, but that's neither surprising nor a
problem, because that's not what it's for; we had and have sh (and its
cohorts, such as ksh) for that.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B