Backtick versus $()

Chad Perrin perrin at
Fri Feb 25 00:03:31 UTC 2011

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:12:55PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Chad Perrin <perrin at> wrote:
> >
> > 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

You have an attitude problem.  I will only hold that against *you*,
though, and not against your *argument*, just as soon as you present one
that is worth the time I spent reading it.

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

Good for him.

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

I take it "wonky" is some technical term with which I am not familiar.

> *you* are the one that's dodging questions

Really?  What question did I dodge?  If you repeat it, and it is not
completely full of crap, I'll be happy to address it directly.

> 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

What does that have to do with it?  I never said otherwise.

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

I guess that depends on how you define "feature" -- but I don't use csh
without the t much, anyway, so that statement is not directly applicable
to the interactive shell I have been using most of the time.

Also . . . feature counts are not measures of quality.

> 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

Maybe so.

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

I'm not sure why you're bringing these things up.  "They both have
instances of the same basic mistake -- implementing functionality that
already exists in standard utilities."  Well, great.  I'm not sure how
that has anything to do with mksh being better in all ways.

> 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

I have to wonder if you even understand your own arguments when you say
things like this.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list