At Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:58:48 +0200,
Aryan Ameri wrote:
>
> On Saturday 15 March 2003 03:05, John Hasler wrote:
> > > I know the shortcomings of csh have been discussed
> > > elsewhere in this thread. But tcsh is enhanced csh.
> >
> > I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is
>
I wrote:
> I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is just not
> suitable for scripting.
Johan Kullstam writes:
> I do. If csh (and tcsh) suck for scripting, then why on earth use them
> as your shell?
I don't.
> If you make them your shell then you have to spend time learnin
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know the shortcomings of csh have been discussed elsewhere in this
> > thread. But tcsh is enhanced csh.
>
> I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is just not
> suitable for scripting.
I do. If csh (and tcsh) suck for scripting,
Aryan Ameri writes:
> OK you guys say that, OOo is bad software because they use csh, and they
> use java to build it. Don't get me wrong, I am a true believer in free
> software, but I guess sometimes, you have to see things from a different
> point of view.
My main objection is not that csh and
On Saturday 15 March 2003 03:05, John Hasler wrote:
> > I know the shortcomings of csh have been discussed elsewhere in this
> > thread. But tcsh is enhanced csh.
>
> I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is just not
> suitable for scripting.
>
> > Perhaps you should rephrase y
> I know the shortcomings of csh have been discussed elsewhere in this
> thread. But tcsh is enhanced csh.
I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is just not
suitable for scripting.
> Perhaps you should rephrase your complaint to address a more significant
> issue, the presenc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> not all Unix or
> Unix-like (attention SCO) systems use or would use bash.
Nor do they all have csh. But they all have sh. If you want
least-common-denominator portability, use sh and stock Unix commands.
> I have no faith in the quality of the work of developers who w
On 13 Mar 2003 16:40:25 -0600,
John Hasler wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh
> > scripting, OpenOffice.org.
[...]
> I have no faith in the quality of the work of developers who
> would choose to use csh in their build system. I would o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh
> scripting, OpenOffice.org.
I wrote:
> Thanks for the warning. I had been considering installing it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Not needed if all you want is to run it.
I have no faith in the quality of the work
On 12 Mar 2003 18:28:52 -0600,
John Hasler wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh
> > scripting, OpenOffice.org.
>
> Thanks for the warning. I had been considering installing it.
s/installing/compiling
Not needed if all you want is to run
John Hasler wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh scripting,
> > OpenOffice.org.
>
> Thanks for the warning. I had been considering installing it.
I'm not sure it's required for installation. I don't have csh or tcsh
installed, yet the openo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh scripting,
> OpenOffice.org.
Thanks for the warning. I had been considering installing it.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 06:45:15AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not convinced. As the article itself points out, there are
> workarounds for the perceived weaknesses of csh. And why pick on
> the granddaddy, when the grandson is very much alive and kickin?
> I've been using tcsh for both m
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:08:19 -0800,
Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> Hello,
>
> I think you've already gotten good answers about the book, and
> how bash is derived from bourne, and what ksh and csh are.
>
> While you're learning about the shells, I think it's important
> to keep this in mind:
>
Hello,
I think you've already gotten good answers about the book, and how bash
is derived from bourne, and what ksh and csh are.
While you're learning about the shells, I think it's important to keep
this in mind:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
It's good to learn csh in ord
Aryan writes:
> I want to learn shell programming. Thus I went to my university's library
> and found a book named "UNIX Shell Programming". The problem is, the book
> is written on 1988, and covers shell programming on Korn, Bourne and the
> C Shell on both AT&T System V and Berkely systems ( I gu
"Aryan" == Aryan Ameri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aryan> I want to learn shell programming. Thus I went to my
Aryan> university's library and found a book named "UNIX Shell
Aryan> Programming". The problem is, the book is written on 1988,
Aryan> and covers shell programming on
> Hi There:
>
> This message is not debain related, however as this ML is my best source of
> information, I hope you'll excuse me.
>
> I want to learn shell programming. Thus I went to my university's library and
> found a book named "UNIX Shell Programming". The problem is, the book is
> wri
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:41:46PM +0200, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> 1 ) Can this book be beneficial for me? or is it so obsolete that it is not
> useful anymore?
Certainly if you use it and the contents does not bore you :-)
> The book shows examples for all of these tree shells. Therefore I wonder
I've got the same book, though unfortunately I got derailed from finishing
it. So take that in consideration.
I think if you dig around on Amazon or Barnes & Noble, you'll be able to
read a variety of reviews and opinions on this and other books. I do that a
lot to help me assess whether or not
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:41:46PM +0200, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> Hi There:
> 1 ) Can this book be beneficial for me? or is it so obsolete that it is not
> usefull anymore?
i would say this makes it even *more* useful. personally, i do all
my scripting in /bin/sh (that's the Bourne shell), because
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:41:46PM +0200, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> I want to learn shell programming. Thus I went to my university's library and
> found a book named "UNIX Shell Programming". The problem is, the book is
> written on 1988, and covers shell programming on Korn, Bourne and the C Sh
> Obviously, I am using Debian GNU/Linux not System V or BSD, and I use BASH.
> But this is the only book in our library about shell programming. so I
> wonder:
Not exactly what you asked for, but I've found "Advanced Bash-Scripting
Guide" (or actually it's precursor) very usefull. You can find i
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 10:41, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> Hi There:
>
> This message is not debain related, however as this ML is my best source of
> information, I hope you'll excuse me.
>
> I want to learn shell programming. Thus I went to my university's library and
> found a book named "UNIX Shell
Hi There:
This message is not debain related, however as this ML is my best source of
information, I hope you'll excuse me.
I want to learn shell programming. Thus I went to my university's library and
found a book named "UNIX Shell Programming". The problem is, the book is
written on 1988, an
25 matches
Mail list logo
