John Nemeth skrev:
> On Jan 13,  5:05pm, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> } Chavdar Ivanov skrev:
> } 
> } > Since I read 'csh considered harmful'
> } > (http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot.html), some 12
> } > years ago, I haven't touched csh or any derivative of it.
> } 
> } You know the fine thing about religion? Everyone have one. :-)
> } Personally I think sh and it's derivates are jokes invented to punish
> } people. :-) Give me (t)csh any day of the week, and I'll be happy.
> } But I won't prevent others from using sh, and won't try to convert
> } them.  And I expect the same in return.
> 
> <AOL>
> 
>      Actually, I somewhat understand what it is saying from a scripting
> point of view, but as an interactive shell, "sh" sucks.

Well, to nitpick a little more as well, the article makes a good point for not 
writing scripts in csh. However, one *very* interesting note appears at the end 
of the article.

"Do yourself a favor, and if you *have* to write a shell script, do it in the
Bourne shell.  It's on every UNIX system out there.  However, behavior
can vary."

Now, it's easy to overlook this small paragraph, but I'd say that's also a good 
reason not to use a scripting language. I really like it when I get the same 
behaviour everywhere. But anyway, this was a csh-bashing article, so it's quite 
understandable that it didn't go into problems with sh.

The gist of the article is otherwise to not write scripts in any shell, but to 
use Perl or something similar instead (hey, the guy who wrote it is/was a Perl 
consultant). But sh-advocates just jump on the "don't write in csh" as an 
argument pro sh. :-)

Personally, I've never had any problems with the bugs and limitations in csh, 
even when I've written scripts, so I don't consider it a problem. If I want to 
do really complex stuff I really don't do in as scripts at all. I very much 
prefer to write it in C in that case. Scripts are for the simple stuff.

> } > (BTW that remark about the pdp's is so very true - it wasn't that long
> } > ago I had to help some hospital's scanner of some description sort out
> } > it's RT-11 system...)
> } 
> } Still do work on RSX systems here. And you can still buy new pdp-11s
> } as well, if you really want to.
> 
>     Who is makeing pdp-11s, now that DEC has exploded?  Or, are these
> things that have been sitting in some warehouse for the past 30 years?

Well, Mentec bought the PDP-11 business from DEC, and were selling new hardware 
until a couple of years ago. But they now seem to have stopped with that. (Still 
deals with software though. But their website seems to have gone up in smoke.)
This leaves us with just Quickware (www.quickware.com) for new CPUs. I really 
don't know how to classify Strobe's Osprey products. They are hardware, and you 
can have your Unibus or Qbus as well, but the actual CPU is plugged into a PC 
box. Definitely hardware, but... Well... You know... PCs... :-)

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol