Julio Porras said the following...
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> I really HATE this kind of responses, I really do.
>
> Davina wrote: "csh for scripting eh? Try digging around on the net for the
> document containing numerous reasons not to!  :-)"
>
> This not only provides us with little help, but also, it trend to insult our
> "small" intelligence (after all, we post to this list looking for help,
> right?).

Perhaps you are over reacting?  The reasons for not using csh for
scripting are really way off topic for this mailing list.

Boiled down the reasons are somewhat like:

        o csh has far to many easy to exploit security holes.
        o csh is generally more bug full than other shells.
        o csh doesn't play well with others.

Personally I've always found really strange interactions when you switch
between sh based shells and csh based shells.  I tend to use C, awk,
sed and sh since I predate perl.  (Never trust a programming language
that has been in use less time than you've been a sysadmin? :-))

Matt

--
  O      O            __ |     \|                             O       O
 /|\   -/-   _ __\ O    _\O     |/      (/              O/    /\-    /|\
 / \   / )    /   \       |    /O    _ O/_   _ O_ ^_   / \^_   )\    / \
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Goldman       E-mail: goldman AT visi DOT com

Gallium--Arsenide: The technology of the future, as it always will be.
        Dr. A. Goldman, Dr. R. Goldman and Dr. E Behringer

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=