seebs@plethora.net sez:
/*
 * In message <199903161719.JAA05607@Cup.DSG.Stanford.EDU>, Jonathan Stone writes:
 * >Really? i'm at least as surprised to hear so many people depending on
 * >the abortion that is sh.  As a scripting language, it has csh beat,
 * >but the UI?
 * 
 * I like it a lot.  Of course, I use ksh.

ksh now is more portable, code-wise, than it was.  Used to be, before
the days of NIS (nee YP), it did its own memory allocation, NOT called
malloc.  It used sbrk()/brk().  It also did its own password file lookups.
If you compiled in NIS support by referencing getpw*, it would SEGV+ on you
because getpw* use malloc() which, like every other memory mangler,
will completely hose any other memory mangler you are using.

When I first used ksh, I also found it slow, and having to type
"fg %" or "fg %3", and not having the ability to use ls -l {foo,bar}.c
were just the cappers to drive me away from ksh, command line editing
or no.  I like it, too, which is why I use tcsh.  BUT NOT FOR ROOT'S LOGIN
SHELL.

 * 
 * I'm a big fan of command line *editing*, not just history, and I like
 * the POSIX-sh style.

De gustibus non est disputantum.

 * I also find ${foo%bar} et al. easier to remember than the csh equivalents,
 * and more flexible.

I had to convert a project full of such constructs to perl.

 * 
 * And, of course, if you aren't using your command shell as a scripting
 * language, you're missing half the fun.

We shot our last ksh scripter, and csh is certainly not good for scripting
(except for doing login stuff).

However, csh is still a nice command line interpreter.

 * 	$ for i in ...

And typing "sh\n" is not that hard for me to do if I need to write a
shell script in real-time.

 * -s
 */





				--*greywolf;
--
System V Release 4 /MIS tem FIVE re LEES FORE/ n. 1.  An operating system so
hideously huge, bloated and driven by marketing rather than performance or
functionality that it has outlived its own usefulness (we hope).  See
"Wrong Answer, The".