widyono@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Aasmodeus) (02/17/91)
Here I am again... I've only begun to become more confused... Which is better... ARP commands, or the CLI (NewShell) ? I've heard bad things about both (i.e. ARP mount doesn't work, CLI takes up more disk space (BTW, I boot off a 40mb HD so that doesn't matter) and is slower... How about the CShell that's come out as 1.02 on ab20? Is that better than both because it seems to do pattern-matching well, is resident, and uses less space than CLI. It doesn't have its own mount command so it uses the original (er, if that's the CLI original, then it should work, correct?). I seem to like it very much, but am a wary customer.... I doubt I'll go invest in getting the ARP archive. BTW, note for Matt Dillon, Carlo Borreo, and Cesare Dieni (authors): Excellent stuff, except for the man command: wouldn't it be easy to insert a table of contents encoded and hidden (to a text reader) which would allow quick access to 1) find out if the argument exists in the doc file, and 2) where it exists ? Man seems to search thru this file every time I use it. :| Even on a HD it's quite slow. Daniel Widyono "Aas" <. .> ________SEAS: BE (+ CSE hopeful) 3450 Chestnut St. Box 86 . __ //only /widyono @ eniac.seas.upenn.edu Philadelphia, PA, 19104 \_/ \X/ Amiga/ I voted 4 Bill & Opus too. Darn. *** I HATE not being able to do rm *. :| Then again, I'd hate to be *** *** ABLE to do it :) I LOVE the piping: it even works with MORE's *** *** which use a file requester (I just select the pipe file in RAM: *** *** as input). Saddam is a butt. These are all my own opinions. :. ***
martens@python.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (02/17/91)
Is CShell similar to Unix csh? -- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) "Don't go back to Rockville, [and] waste another year." -- R.E.M.
widyono@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Aasmodeus) (02/18/91)
Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Is CShell similar to Unix csh?
Well, yes and no. CShell (named Shell actually, in the archive) gives
certain similarities such as pipes and most of the programming function-
ality (maybe all- I haven't actually programmed with it yet) but not
exactly- the only problem is that the commands, in order to save disk
space, were hard-coded into the Shell itself (thus they're all resident
while Shell is running*). This became a problem for me when I tried
piping- the standard input must be given as a filename ("STDIN") in order
for the command to receive the correct input. It won't work for external
programs which don't understand the filename "STDIN" i.e. the MORE (not
the original supplied with AmiD1.3 but er, someone else's (i fergot)).
NOTE: However, using the file requester, I can select RAM:pipe3850dga
^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't remember exactly what this filename looks like, but it is the
temporary file shell uses to simulate a PIPE: ; before closing a write, it
waits for a complete read.
and thus MORE can read its input from this pseudo file. I don't however
enjoy doing that each time.
My question originally still stands:
Which do you regard as most efficient and up to date ,
ARP commands on disk vs. CLI commands on disk vs. CShell commands internally
ARP supposedly better than CLI , faster.
CLI has a COMPATIBLE mount command, what else is missing from ARP?
CShell has nice extras...
Daniel Widyono "Aas" <. .> ________SEAS: BE (+ CSE hopeful)
3450 Chestnut St. Box 86 . __ //only /widyono @ eniac.seas.upenn.edu
Philadelphia, PA, 19104 \_/ \X/ Amiga/ I voted 4 Bill & Opus too. Darn.