Backtick versus $()

Andres Perera andres.p at
Thu Feb 24 23:43:31 UTC 2011

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin <perrin at> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:00:11PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten <Ggatten at> wrote:
>> > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period.  It does
>> > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow.  It doesn't
>> > require any upgrades, ever.  It's 100% secure.  It doesn't use any
>> > memory or other resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed;
>> > it just "magically" works.
>> you can ignore all you want, but there are shells of different quality,
>> and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway
> You keep saying that.  Maybe it's just personal taste.
>> there are no interactive features in csh that could justify its
>> inclusion over mksh, and the code is regarded as horrible (as per author
>> and people with eyes) because of the adhoc parser
>> tcsh people fixed a few bugs, but that doesn't change that the intrinsic
>> design is a mess. the tcsh also added stupid redundant builtins like
>> ls-F
>> mksh also has stupid builtins like cat, but it makes up for it by being
>> an extremely solid shell and overall more polished than the horrible
>> turd that is (t)csh
> So far, your complaints translate to "Well, sure, for every concrete
> (t)csh problem I've identified, mksh has similar problems, but it's
> better because I like it."

you are an obtuse person

the author of vi, who is also the author of csh regards it as poor code

the parser is wonky and tcsh built uppon that code instead of basing
their efforts on something solid

*you* are the one that's dodging questions

history expansion is in all the modern shells, so it's not a "csh
thing" anymore, and hasn't been for a very long time

every feature in csh is present in other shells, barring repetition
like ls-F (other ls(1) implement colors)

what's the justification for ls-F according to the manual? "it's
faster than ls(1)", which amounts to nothing in modern times and is a
clear case of over-optimization

what's the justification for cat builtin in mksh? the read builtin
partly implements it, so it doesn't even represent new code addition

it's clearly a different case, and the fact that you can't see this
seems to indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about,
like most of the people on this thread

> --
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: ]

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list