On 15 Aug 10:27, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 04:36:11PM +0100, Srdjan Todorovic wrote:
2008/8/14 Adrian F. Clark alien@essex.ac.uk:
On 14/8/08 15:57, Brett Parker wrote:
Python 2.5 and 2.5?! Wow! And, err, what on earth did you install tcsh for? csh is a very very bad shell.
Apologies: 2.4 and 2.5. In what way is csh bad, pray? I've been typing commands into it for about 25 years with no problems.
I seem to remember that tcsh has no function support. There was a document/essay written by somebody that gave reasons why we should just avoid tcsh like the plague.
Presumably that's avoiding it for writing shell scripts, not as an interactive shell?
(Personally I hate ending up with csh as my shell, but I believe it's still the default on Solaris/other BSD based OSes?)
Most have switched to using ksh these days. A quick google suggests that even solaris has switched to using a default of a statically linked Bourne shell, and Solaris 10 appears to use a dynamically linked bourne shell...
Mac OS X when first introduced did, indeed, default to tcsh, but they've since moved to bash.
It does appear, though, that FreeBSD hasn't yet moved out of the dark ages and is still using tcsh as it's default shell.
OpenBSD definately uses ksh these days :)
Maybe it's OK for an interactive shell if you only use the shell to start other programs, perhaps? I tend to end up with some serious command lines of doom in bash that I'm not even sure would be possible in {t,}csh... but then, I am special!
Cheers,