From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim X Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Emacs Environment Variables Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:03:39 +1100 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <877ik4yv1g.fsf@lion.rapttech.com.au> References: <7e3068b0-defa-4b37-9092-182b521f5f50@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <3568102A-B060-4D1F-B7B5-7944386B07A9@Web.DE> <20071124124821.GA5409@ono.com> <87ir3qzw3m.fsf@lion.rapttech.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1196152908 13429 80.91.229.12 (27 Nov 2007 08:41:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:41:48 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 27 09:41:56 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iww0y-0007uE-AW for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:41:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iww0i-0005oO-TG for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:41:41 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!sn-xt-sjc-03!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y4RMex9JETYsVt08PoK6UDeaDMA= Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Original-Lines: 53 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:154144 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:49572 Archived-At: Peter Dyballa writes: > Am 25.11.2007 um 07:18 schrieb Tim X: > >>> IMO bash is a bit too complicated to be used as a user's default shell. >> >> Really? What would you recommend as a default user shell (and please >> don't >> say csh!)? > > > For interactive use I recommend tcsh to begin with. Tcsh makes no > complicated difference between interactive and login shells, it confuses > an user only when preferring an existing ~/.cshrc before ~/.tcshrc. > > Do you know why you are so prejudiced against csh? > A shell usually has two purposes, provide an interactive environment/interface to the system and for writing shell scripts. Csh added some 'nice' features for interactive work, but sacrificed considerable power in scripting. Worse yet, its behavior in some situations is/was 'unexpected' and the ability to handle redirection was totally crippled. Back in the late 80s/early 90s, csh had some nice features that most other shells didn't have. These days, there is nothing in csh you don't get in most modern shells, yet you still have the limitations and inconsistencies when it comes to scripting that it always had (some of them have been fixed, but some can't because of basic design issues). I don't want to have to know two shells, one for interactive work and one for scripting. I want one shell thats good for both and behaves consistently and doesn't add constraints to how I solve problems. All shells seem to have their own idiosyncratic bits, but csh was the worst I've seen. I've also found that generally, when I've had issues with a shell script I didn't write, opening it often reveals it is csh. Back when I was learning shell scripting, I made the mistake of using csh at first. Once I'd been stung a few times and once I saw other solutions that were better than mine because they didn't have the same limitations, I stopped usinig it and stuck with sh. The other advantage of sh is that it has high compatibility and portability. Pretty much any sh based script will run on systems that support sh. Many systems don't even have csh or tcsh installed. Many years ago, there were a couple of articles/posts concerning csh scripting being 'hazardous' for your health. A google will probably find a copy somewhere. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au