Subject: Re: CVS commit: basesrc/bin/ksh
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 10/16/2002 10:40:39
[ On Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 01:31:49 (-0700), John Nemeth wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS commit: basesrc/bin/ksh
> On Feb 17, 7:30pm, Joerg Klemenz wrote:
> } ksh may have some issues but it's still lightyears ahead of csh.
> This is a matter of opinion.
No, it isn't really. Csh was essentially stuck in the mud the moment
*BSD was shipped with Borne shell. It took some time for people to
realize this, but now we have international agreement that the Borne
shell is the standards and we also now have ksh which has grown beyond
what sh was alone and the standards have continued to follow ksh
(i.e. new language features in ksh are now included in the standards and
are ported back into other shell implementations such as ash). 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? I.e. has any language feature
from tcsh been added back to csh because nobody should be without it?
Are there even any new language features to pull back at all?
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>