jdm@gssc.UUCP (John D. Miller) (03/18/87)
this System V vs. BSD argument could go on for a while, so maybe it should
be moved to unix.wizards.
a parting note: someone commented that System V does not have job control. not
true - shl lets you manage up to 6 or 8 subshells quite nicely, in some ways
nicer than csh, in some ways not as nice.
while we are on the subject of System V with BSD enhancements, maybe somebody
could come up with a shell that combines ksh with csh. i really like ksh's
ability to edit scripts, but i wish to heck it had !$. (and while you're at
it, make it run in about 15K and as fast as native assembler code. =) )
-- jdm
--
in real life: John D. Miller, Graphic Software Systems, Inc., Beaverton OR
...!{tektronix!verdix}!sequent!gssc!jdm (503) 641-2200
...!mntgfx!gssc!jdm "Roger. Go with throttle up."gustav@swanee.UUCP (03/30/87)
In article <354@gssc.UUCP>, jdm@gssc.UUCP (John D. Miller) writes: > > while we are on the subject of System V with BSD enhancements, maybe somebody > could come up with a shell that combines ksh with csh. i really like ksh's > ability to edit scripts, but i wish to heck it had !$. (and while you're at > it, make it run in about 15K and as fast as native assembler code. =) ) Good God! No, the whole advantage of ksh is that it DOES NOT LOOK LIKE csh but instead it is upwardly compatible with (standard) Bourne shell. At the same time it provides most (or may be even all) functions offered by csh, although sometimes you have to do things in a somewhat different way to achieve the same effect. Definitely, combining csh and ksh is a BAD idea. ARPA : gustav%swanee.oz@seismo.css.gov UUCP : ...!{seismo,mcvax,ucb-vision,uks}!munnari!swanee.oz!gustav