> > So I was right. I was expecting pdksh, though (the Public Domain Korn
> > SHell).
> It appears that the maillist switched the order of my two posts.
Yes, the demonic mailer daemon strikes again...
> Yes, Korn
> Shell. In my experience pdksh is not a good substitute for ksh (although
> my experience was years ago; not sure of the current status).
I think I'll stick to BASH.
> > And what of the C Shell?
>
> I have used the C Shell, and it provides a nice interface. However, csh is
> worse than worthless for creating scripts:
The name looked so promising! My first impression (based on the name
alone) led me to assume that I could write scripts like:
if (x)
{
doSomething();
}
(i.e. using C syntax, which I think is just lovely)
After actually reading about it, I was left with the question, "Why the
HELL is this called the C Shell anyway? Is it just a clever way of
saying seashell?"
> <quote>
> Unix Support frequently advises people not to use /bin/csh. Here is the
> classic document by Tom Christiansen on why you shouldn't use it for
> scripts.
>
> Csh Programming Considered Harmful
<shudder> I think I'll stick to BASH.
> > ...I read about one version called "tcsh" in a
> > Linux book.
>
> I've heard it is improved. I'd do some research before I started using it,
> however. The above URL is a good place to start, it mentions tcsh.
I don't think I read what "t" stands for... "The" perhaps?
> > #!/bin/sh
>
> In the UNIX world, there are basically two types of shell scripts-- those
> based upon the Bourne Shell (including Korn Shell and BASH), and those
> based upon the C Shell. The common shell language for writing portable
> scripts is the Bourne Shell. Advanced features of other shells are to be
> avoided unless the script is never expected to leave the target system.
Once again, I'll do BASH. If I want more features, I'll move up to
another language (AWK, PERL, C, C++, Tcl, ...). Or I could write a
little utility program in one of these other languages and call it from
a shell script. In my DOS batch programming, I would fill in all the
holes with plenty of cool .com programs that usually just called an
interrupt or two.
> There may be other considerations for Linux. It seems that BASH has become
> pretty much a standard.
I can see why.
Hey. I have a BASH question. On my computer running Red Hat 5.0, BASH
doesn't take kindly to the DEL key. Whenever I press it, it beeps at me
and emits a ~ into the command line. DEL works in emacs... why not
BASH? I'd also like to be able to map HOME and END to what emacs's
Ctrl+A and Ctrl+E (well, the go-to-end-of-line shortcut). Any tips?
> The #! convention is an interesting story. Too long for posting here; I
> refer you to:
>
> 16 bits, right?) When the `#!' magic number was recognized, the
> kernel would read in the rest of the line and treat it as a
> command to run upon the contents of the file. With this hack you
I wonder what #! assembles to... I hope it's nothing meaningful!
P.S. Is anyone else here aware of the BAND Korn? Very cool stuff... not
UNIX-related (All day I dream about sex... all day I dream about
@#$!ing...) though.
