ksh vs csh (was Re: SVR4 /bin/sh BUG)

[Luke Mewburn]

morgan at ogicse.ogi.edu (Clark O. Morgan) writes:

>In article <PD.91Jun19125339 at powys.x.co.uk> pd at x.co.uk (Paul Davey) writes:
>>-> crash at ckctpa.UUCP (Frank J. Edwards) writes:
>>
>>>>Why do *you* use csh?  What are the advantages (please be specific and
>>>>objective) of csh over ksh?
>>
>>Another advantage is that csh is more likely to be present, I work on
>>many machines, and like as standard an environment as is practicable.
>>
>>Also ksh doesn't have the ability to refer to !-5:3 (not that I do
>>this very often but !131$ or !132* are very useful.

>How true.  Also, csh's "!?" history notation is extremely useful.  I
>use ksh every day and hope never again to be forced to use "bare" csh
>(command line editing is quite a time saver).  But the absence of the
>history features you mentioned (and "!?") is irritating.

>Fortunately, there is an alternative.  The GNU shell, bash, supports
>both command line and history editing (ala ksh) _and_ the csh history
>recall syntax.  Since bash sources are available via FTP, you can place
>this shell on every machine you use.  I suspect I will be switching to
>bash very soon....

Bash is nice is you are used to sh/ksh. I'm not...
I tried bash, and thought "wow!.. this has got
command line editing, and filecompletion" (which,
BTW, our version of csh has...).
  My advice is:
If you like sh (more specifically) ksh:   Use bash
If you like csh : Use Tcsh...

I prefer tcsh, but bash is just about the same in the
options/features available :-)

>-- 
>Clark O. Morgan     morgan at cse.ogi.edu     ...!uunet!ogicse!morgan