gregorynyssa: asciilifeform: given that you spend not inconsiderable time upon Linux, which shell do you prefer?
gregorynyssa: does csh(1) aka. tcsh(1) have any merit, in your opinion?
asciilifeform: gregorynyssa: asciilifeform to this day uses bash
asciilifeform: ( which sadly not in fact standard at all fwiw )
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-04-11 22:08:25 asciilifeform: ( not to mention, ~errybody's 'sh' is actually bash-only )
gregorynyssa: asciilifeform: if I understand correctly from that thread, you are saying that the POSIX standard for shells is too crippled
gregorynyssa: that it cannot be used to write non-trivial shell-scripts, is that right?
gregorynyssa: I am not comfortable with the fourth-generation shells: bash(1), zsh(1), KSH93.
gregorynyssa: I like the Slackware fork of dash(1) but it has some errors, including in the latest release, 15.0.
gregorynyssa: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-04-11#1095353 << line-at-a-time execution is a different genre from modular programming.
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-04-11 22:09:05 asciilifeform: sh, perlism, pythonism, 'must die'(tm) imho.
gregorynyssa: thus it makes sense for a shell-language and a programming language to coexist.
gregorynyssa: even on a system of exemplary design.
gregorynyssa: I would even admit a tripartite distinction: shell-language, "tractate" language (such as awk(1) or Tcl, but with clean semantics), and modular language.