Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hackers-il] My "Stop Using (and Teaching) C-Shell and Tcsh" Page

Expand Messages
  • Arik Baratz
    ... It was 12 years ago when I learned csh, but from what I remember the killer feature was the c-like properties of csh, the ability to program in a way
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 7, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On 10/7/07, Nadav Har'El <nyh@...> wrote:

      What always baffles me is why people learn or teach csh at all. With all its
      downsides, bugs and problems (whether there are 5, 10 or 50 of those), what
      exactly are its positive sides?

      It was 12 years ago when I learned csh, but from what I remember the "killer feature" was the c-like properties of csh, the ability to program in a way that is almost, but not entirely unlike c.

      I have to admit that as my first shell (I knew nothing of Unix when I came to the Technion and we did study csh) it looked half decent, and easy to learn if you know c. Then again, as I learned to realize that my nice scripts wouldn't really run anywhere, the charm kinda went away.

      When I worked in the Technion's computer center and had to deal with the users whining about incompatible csh/tcsh versions across the different platforms, I learned to dislike it. When that physics professor was told he would have to rewrite his rather elaborate multi-kilobyte tcsh script in another language (sh was suggested) for it to run on a particular parallel computer because the compiler there wouldn't compile tcsh... fun times.

      Today I write even the simplest scripts in Python, and use bash as my shell.

      Take care,

      -- Arik

    • Beni Cherniavsky
      ... Good page. Definitely s/tcsh/bash/g is even more obvious than s/cvs/svn/g ;-) But for those of us that find even {ba,z,k}sh unsatisfactory, I highly
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 19, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On 10/6/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
        > We discussed the C-shell in these mailing lists before. A few days ago I
        > decided to set up the definitive anti-C-shell page, based on an email I
        > wrote, so I did:
        >
        > http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/csh/
        >
        Good page. Definitely s/tcsh/bash/g is even more obvious than s/cvs/svn/g ;-)

        But for those of us that find even {ba,z,k}sh unsatisfactory, I highly
        recommend trying the Friendly Interactive SHell
        <http://fishshell.org/>. It fixes many things like quoting, innovates
        in configuration and has interactive syntax-higlighted
        multiline-editing completing-on-steroids prompt.

        I do have to warn that it is still evolving, not perfectly stable, and
        has performance problems. So you might not want it as your login
        shell yet, but it's definitely worth checking out.

        See http://fishshell.org/wiki/moin.cgi/BashToFish for some highlights
        and a quick start.


        --
        Beni Cherniavsky <cben@...> (I read email only on weekends)

        Joyce hangs up an African mask and says "It cheers up the room."
        Buffy: "It's angry at the room, Mom. It wants the room to suffer."
        -- `Dead Man's Party`, BtVS S03E02
      • Shlomi Fish
        ... My problem with FISH is that its syntax is incompatible with that of the Bourne Shell, much less with bash. As such, I recommend people not to get use it,
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 19, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Friday 19 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
          > On 10/6/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
          > > We discussed the C-shell in these mailing lists before. A few days ago I
          > > decided to set up the definitive anti-C-shell page, based on an email I
          > > wrote, so I did:
          > >
          > > http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/csh/
          >
          > Good page. Definitely s/tcsh/bash/g is even more obvious than s/cvs/svn/g
          > ;-)
          >
          > But for those of us that find even {ba,z,k}sh unsatisfactory, I highly
          > recommend trying the Friendly Interactive SHell
          > <http://fishshell.org/>. It fixes many things like quoting, innovates
          > in configuration and has interactive syntax-higlighted
          > multiline-editing completing-on-steroids prompt.

          My problem with FISH is that its syntax is incompatible with that of the
          Bourne Shell, much less with bash. As such, I recommend people not to get use
          it, for fear it will become the next csh/tcsh. I'd rather improve bash or zsh
          in areas that one feels they need improvement, than create something
          incompatible.

          So stay away.

          And I daresay I don't find bash unsatisfactory. I'm probably still using a
          very small of its functionality, and it has many dark corners that I haven't
          investigated yet. I still haven't even found enough motivation to use zsh
          instead of bash.

          And I'm still finding myself using Perl for many non-trivial scripting
          problems.

          >
          > I do have to warn that it is still evolving, not perfectly stable, and
          > has performance problems. So you might not want it as your login
          > shell yet, but it's definitely worth checking out.
          >

          I'd rather see the good FISH ideas integrated into bash.

          > See http://fishshell.org/wiki/moin.cgi/BashToFish for some highlights
          > and a quick start.

          Regards,

          Shlomi Fish

          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
          Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

          If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
          one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
          -- An Israeli Linuxer
        • Beni Cherniavsky
          ... It won t become the next csh because it s not vastly inferior ;-). It just as real a language as bash, only different. Whether to use it or not is a
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 20, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On 10/19/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
            > On Friday 19 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
            > > But for those of us that find even {ba,z,k}sh unsatisfactory, I highly
            > > recommend trying the Friendly Interactive SHell
            > > <http://fishshell.org/>. It fixes many things like quoting, innovates
            > > in configuration and has interactive syntax-higlighted
            > > multiline-editing completing-on-steroids prompt.
            >
            > My problem with FISH is that its syntax is incompatible with that of the
            > Bourne Shell, much less with bash. As such, I recommend people not to get use
            > it, for fear it will become the next csh/tcsh. I'd rather improve bash or zsh
            > in areas that one feels they need improvement, than create something
            > incompatible.
            >
            > So stay away.
            >
            It won't become the next csh because it's not vastly inferior ;-). It
            just as real a language as bash, only different. Whether to use it or
            not is a pesonal decision, depending on whether one likes it, being an
            early adopter, etc.

            Of course, as Nadav says, if somebody is going to learn just one
            shell, the only sensible recommendation is [ba]sh.

            > And I daresay I don't find bash unsatisfactory. I'm probably still using a
            > very small of its functionality, and it has many dark corners that I haven't
            > investigated yet. I still haven't even found enough motivation to use zsh
            > instead of bash.
            >
            I find any shell following Bourne shell semantics of quoting and
            variable expansion inherently broken, because it takes too much hassle
            to write correct code. IMMV.

            > And I'm still finding myself using Perl for many non-trivial scripting
            > problems.
            >
            Obviously. Command-line glue is just not flexible enough to compete
            with real data structures and interfaces that you find in a real
            language. Also, shell scripts suffer from much higher software rot
            due to dependence on numerous external programs.

            > I'd rather see the good FISH ideas integrated into bash.
            >
            Some of them (mostly the interactive features) could, and probably
            should, be integrated.
            But the syntax improvements can't be sh-compatible, because it
            explicitly sets out fix sh syntax mistakes.

            --
            Beni Cherniavsky <cben@...> (I read email only on weekends)
          • Shlomi Fish
            ... It still may introduce bad habits when using Bash for scripts. ... Right. ... Can you give some examples for that? And if so - how is FISH better? ...
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 21, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Saturday 20 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
              > On 10/19/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
              > > On Friday 19 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
              > > > But for those of us that find even {ba,z,k}sh unsatisfactory, I highly
              > > > recommend trying the Friendly Interactive SHell
              > > > <http://fishshell.org/>. It fixes many things like quoting, innovates
              > > > in configuration and has interactive syntax-higlighted
              > > > multiline-editing completing-on-steroids prompt.
              > >
              > > My problem with FISH is that its syntax is incompatible with that of the
              > > Bourne Shell, much less with bash. As such, I recommend people not to get
              > > use it, for fear it will become the next csh/tcsh. I'd rather improve
              > > bash or zsh in areas that one feels they need improvement, than create
              > > something incompatible.
              > >
              > > So stay away.
              >
              > It won't become the next csh because it's not vastly inferior ;-). It
              > just as real a language as bash, only different. Whether to use it or
              > not is a pesonal decision, depending on whether one likes it, being an
              > early adopter, etc.

              It still may introduce bad habits when using Bash for scripts.

              >
              > Of course, as Nadav says, if somebody is going to learn just one
              > shell, the only sensible recommendation is [ba]sh.

              Right.

              >
              > > And I daresay I don't find bash unsatisfactory. I'm probably still using
              > > a very small of its functionality, and it has many dark corners that I
              > > haven't investigated yet. I still haven't even found enough motivation to
              > > use zsh instead of bash.
              >
              > I find any shell following Bourne shell semantics of quoting and
              > variable expansion inherently broken, because it takes too much hassle
              > to write correct code. IMMV.

              Can you give some examples for that? And if so - how is FISH better?

              >
              > > And I'm still finding myself using Perl for many non-trivial scripting
              > > problems.
              >
              > Obviously. Command-line glue is just not flexible enough to compete
              > with real data structures and interfaces that you find in a real
              > language. Also, shell scripts suffer from much higher software rot
              > due to dependence on numerous external programs.

              Well, there are standards defining a subset of the behaviour of such programs.

              >
              > > I'd rather see the good FISH ideas integrated into bash.
              >
              > Some of them (mostly the interactive features) could, and probably
              > should, be integrated.
              > But the syntax improvements can't be sh-compatible, because it
              > explicitly sets out fix sh syntax mistakes.

              I see.

              Regards,

              Shlomi Fish

              ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
              Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

              If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
              one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
              -- An Israeli Linuxer
            • Beni Cherniavsky
              ... You CAN do anything in sh, but it s defaults are bad, which makes you use convoluted syntax or give up and write code with bugs. Consider this fish code:
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 22, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Oct 21, 2007 8:07 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                > On Saturday 20 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
                > > I find any shell following Bourne shell semantics of quoting and
                > > variable expansion inherently broken, because it takes too much hassle
                > > to write correct code. IMMV.
                >
                > Can you give some examples for that? And if so - how is FISH better?
                >
                You CAN do anything in sh, but it's defaults are bad, which makes you
                use convoluted syntax or give up and write code with bugs.

                Consider this fish code:
                {{{
                set files (ls) # splits on \n, creates array
                for f in $files # space-safe!
                cp $f ../backup/$f~ # space-safe
                end
                ls -l ../backup/$files~ # space-safe, adds backup/...~ around each word!
                }}}

                The best equivalent POSIX sh code I can come up is much uglier (by
                "equivalent" I mean working in the same way; there are easier ways to
                do it but I wanted examples of specific shell constucts):
                {{{
                IFS=$'\n' files=($(ls))
                for f in "${files[@]}"; do
                cp "$f" ../backup/"$f"~
                end
                files2=("${files[@]/#/../backup/}")
                ls -l "${files2[@]/%/~}"
                }}}
                Note especially the syntax for simple one-element-one-word expansion
                of an array variable: {{{"${files[@]}"}}}
                In fish you just write {{{$files}}}!

                However, I was now pleasantly surprised that bash, when not in POSIX
                mode, has saner defaults nowdays!
                You can remove most of the quotes in the above code. Just {{{$*}}} or
                {{{$@}}} now works like {{{"$@"}}}.
                Still, the fact {{{$files}}} only gives the first element of an array,
                so you have to write {{{${files[@]}}}} :-(.

                Fish makes array variables the default, with scalar variables just
                being a special case.
                And fish's behaviour of adding prefixes and suffixes to each word
                (treating variable expansion like brace expansion) is extremely
                convenient.

                There are many more small cleanups in the syntax:
                * Minimalistic command expansion syntax: {{{(command)}}}. LISPers rejoice!
                * Simplified loop and conditionals syntax -- no {{{then}}} or
                {{{do}}}, single {{{end}}} kw.
                * Simplified special chars: \n and the like recognized outside quotes.

                In many ways fish unifies various special cases to a single generic feature.
                * My favorite example is {{{%job}}}. In bash, some builtins such as
                fg or kill special-case this syntax.
                In fish, it's expanded to the pid by the shell, so it's useful in
                any command: {{{pstree %1}}} works!
                * This goes for user interface as well as syntax.

                See http://fishshell.org/user_doc/design.html for more nice principles
                behind fish.
                The bottom line is that fish's design is compact and elegant, without
                dirty baggage.
                This appeals to me very much. It's very possible that my impression
                is subjective.

                --
                Beni Cherniavsky <cben@...> (I read email only on weekends)
              • Nadav Har'El
                ... Just FYI, in ZSH you can do the first 4 lines even more simply, with 2 lines. Zsh has (by default, when not run in sh compatibility mode) saner space-
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 22, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sun, Dec 23, 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] My "Stop Using (and Teaching) C-Shell and Tcsh" Page":
                  > You CAN do anything in sh, but it's defaults are bad, which makes you
                  > use convoluted syntax or give up and write code with bugs.
                  >
                  > Consider this fish code:
                  > {{{
                  > set files (ls) # splits on \n, creates array
                  > for f in $files # space-safe!
                  > cp $f ../backup/$f~ # space-safe
                  > end
                  > ls -l ../backup/$files~ # space-safe, adds backup/...~ around each word!
                  > }}}

                  Just FYI, in ZSH you can do the first 4 lines even more simply, with 2 lines.
                  Zsh has (by default, when not run in sh compatibility mode) "saner" space-
                  separation defaults, has syntax shortcuts (no need for do/done when there's
                  just one line), and can do more things without calling external programs:

                  for f in * # space-safe, and no need to call ls!
                  cp $f ../backup/$f~

                  The 5th line in your example is slightly more complex, and I guess the
                  bash way you found

                  > files2=("${files[@]/#/../backup/}")
                  > ls -l "${files2[@]/%/~}"

                  Is one way to do it, though in zsh, you don't need to do $files[@], you can do

                  files=(*) # space safe
                  ls -l ${files/#/../backup}

                  and so on.

                  > Still, the fact {{{$files}}} only gives the first element of an array,
                  > so you have to write {{{${files[@]}}}} :-(.

                  Strange.

                  > * Minimalistic command expansion syntax: {{{(command)}}}. LISPers rejoice!

                  Other ksh-inspired shells (including zsh and bash) already allow the $(...)
                  syntax. I don't see what removing the extra "$" really buys you.

                  > In fish, it's expanded to the pid by the shell, so it's useful in
                  > any command: {{{pstree %1}}} works!

                  Interesting. Indeed sounds logical.

                  > The bottom line is that fish's design is compact and elegant, without
                  > dirty baggage.

                  I guess I should take a look at it sometime ;-) Maybe after 15 years with
                  Zsh (before which I was mostly using ksh), it's time to consider a switch...
                  Although I'm so pleased with zsh, that Fish would need to be really great
                  to win me over.

                  --
                  Nadav Har'El | Sunday, Dec 23 2007, 14 Tevet 5768
                  nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                  Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |I have a watch cat! If someone breaks in,
                  http://nadav.harel.org.il |she'll watch.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.