[TriLUG] OT: Linux/UNIX shell discussion

[David R. Matusiak]

On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 12:24  PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> bp wrote:
>
>> Seriously now. Why does anyone like csh or ksh?  I personally haven't 
>> found anything redeeming about either.  Bourne shell is super simple 
>> and is everywhere.  Bash is by far the easiest to use IMHO. (esp. for 
>> weened off Window's weenies)
>
> The original post was about learning shell scripting.  If you want to 
> write *portable* shell code, it's important to know the differences 
> between bash and a "real" (aka POSIX) shell that's available 
> everywhere.
>
> - -- Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick -- http://ranger.befunk.com/

my miniscule understanding is that csh has a syntax that is very 
familiar (incl. functional and flexible) to C programmers.  the csh 
shell allows them to set up an environment for greatest possible 
productivity.

also along those lines, ksh (Korn shell, right?) is also very 
customizable and presents happy hacking ground for shell coders.  my 
predecessor was a ksh fanatic, thus i have books and cheat sheets 
galore related to customizing the ksh shell.

personally, i've always been happy with bash.  it is easy.  and Mac OS 
X sets the default terminal to tcsh - which is fine by me, as well.

here's what you do - figure out what "features" you'd like (command 
history, built-in programmatic functions, etc) and then zero in on your 
shell of choice.  but it is always wise to retain a minimal knowledge 
of ALL the shells (or just sh :-) so you can work anywhere.

this is the same reason i learned vi instead of emacs.  please let me 
just get my work done as quickly and easily as possible.  YMMV.  let 
the shell discussion continue...

/drm