Sujet : Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
De : Keith.S.Thompson+u (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Keith Thompson)
Groupes : comp.unix.shell comp.unix.programmer comp.lang.miscDate : 30. Mar 2024, 02:00:16
Autres entêtes
Organisation : None to speak of
Message-ID : <871q7ssfdr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+
ng@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
I can see a point where people use for interactive use other shells
than for programming; like tcsh (interactively) and bash (programming),
because of the powerful features tcsh supports. Since the increase of
interactive features supported by the shells that are typically used
for programming I prefer to have the same shell with same syntax and
features for both, and to be able to pass code from one application
context to the other.
Indeed. I spent several years using tcsh interactively (because it had
a few interactive features that I found convenient) and bash for writing
scripts (previously I had actually written *gasp* csh and tcsh scripts).
Eventually I found that using a single shell for both was easier, and
that bash's interactive features are about as good as tcsh's. (And I
can write complex nested commands on one line, something I probably
wouldn't have attempted in [t]csh even if it were possible.) I haven't
looked back.
zsh has some nice features, but I haven't learned it well enough to
consider switching.
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.comWorking, but not speaking, for Medtronicvoid Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */