Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution?

[William E. Davidsen Jr]

In article <2601 at usceast.UUCP> still at cs.scarolina.edu (Bert Still) writes:
| 
| Ok, it's been a little while since we had a real good "religious war" here in
| comp.unix.wizards, and I have this strange feeling that this might turn into
| one of those... however, here we go. (In the classic style of debate.)

  In spite of the fact that I would never use csh for anything, having
gotten spoiled by ksh, I think that csh would be a good addition.

  I think the reason it's used at universities is that (a) the /bin/sh
with BSD hasn't been upgraded in years (some vendors do, I realize), and
(b) the system administrator likes it so it's the default, and he tells
the student users "everybody uses it."

  If you have a class in shell programming you may see defections to a
new version of sh, and lots to ksh. Even some of our rabid csh fans have
changed, since they were forced to use it for some script programming
and liked it.

  If you see loops which look like as being a benefit, and don't have a
modern version of sh with functions, alias, and history, then use csh.
If you have a modern version of sh (or ksh) and need to use io
redirection beyond the most basic, use sh or ksh

  If you have people who can't use anything beyond a menu use vsh, and
if you have people who like DOS use dsh.

  This is why they make blonds and brunettes, so everyone can find what
they like, and have an alternative if they want a changed of pace ;-).
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu at ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me