Backtick versus $()

Andres Perera andres.p at
Fri Feb 25 00:44:57 UTC 2011

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Chad Perrin <perrin at> wrote:
> I'll try to help make it easy for you, since you seem to be having a lot
> of trouble grasping the concept of actually trying to make a point via
> logical argument and presentation of evidence:
> Start with the Wikipedia page comparing command shells [0].  Look through
> the various tables there -- feel free to ignore the "Programming
> features" table since it's irrelevant to the question of what makes a
> good interactive user shell -- to see where shells differ.  Based on the
> differences you find, build up a list of reasons that tcsh is not as good
> a choice as mksh.

no, let's start by looking at the SOURCE CODE REPOSITORY instead of WIKIPEDIA


> Next, offer some examples of common command line syntax rules and how
> they affect the way we compose commands.  Such examples should include
> stuff like:
> * environment variable assignment, printing, and export

export is the same as environment variable assignment in this context

why is this relevant to interactive shells and not scripting?


> * nesting commands

"nesting" commands? another programming paradigm?

> * completion and history access

modern ksh variants include file completion, tcsh does arbitrary
completion through aliases

the second is arguably misguided since unix is file-centric, not

> * useful configuration file characteristics and capabilities

define "useful"

> Then, of course, you can go on to further strengthen your case with
> references to dependencies, licensing, resource consumption and on-drive
> size, bugs, and so on.

no, bugs is the primary concern because the underlying design is more
important than having flashy lights

if you disagree then you are retarded and the exchange concludes

just explicitly say it: "i don't care if the shell is bugged from hell and back"

> Any of this stuff might actually present a meaningful argument, as
> opposed to just asserting other people are idiots, claiming you're right
> with nothing to back it up, and generally waving your hands and making a
> lot of noise without convincing anyone of anything.
> (By the way, I'll save you the trouble of referring to the license.  I
> know that mksh uses the same license as the MirOS project, which is a
> variant of the Historic Permission license.  It's a copyfree license; I
> have no objects to using it on those grounds, personally.)
> --
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: ]

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list