On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote: > > > > So far, your complaints translate to "Well, sure, for every concrete > > (t)csh problem I've identified, mksh has similar problems, but it's > > better because I like it." > > you are an obtuse person
You have an attitude problem. I will only hold that against *you*, though, and not against your *argument*, just as soon as you present one that is worth the time I spent reading it. > > the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code Good for him. > > the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing > their efforts on something solid I take it "wonky" is some technical term with which I am not familiar. > > *you* are the one that's dodging questions Really? What question did I dodge? If you repeat it, and it is not completely full of crap, I'll be happy to address it directly. > > history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a "csh > thing" anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time What does that have to do with it? I never said otherwise. > > every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition > like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors) I guess that depends on how you define "feature" -- but I don't use csh without the t much, anyway, so that statement is not directly applicable to the interactive shell I have been using most of the time. Also . . . feature counts are not measures of quality. > > what's the justification for ls-F according to the manual? "it's faster > than ls(1)", which amounts to nothing in modern times and is a clear > case of over-optimization Maybe so. > > what's the justification for cat builtin in mksh? the read builtin > partly implements it, so it doesn't even represent new code addition I'm not sure why you're bringing these things up. "They both have instances of the same basic mistake -- implementing functionality that already exists in standard utilities." Well, great. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with mksh being better in all ways. > > it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this > seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about, > like most of the people on this thread I have to wonder if you even understand your own arguments when you say things like this. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpV0Jmfhe7Bd.pgp
Description: PGP signature