26 Jun
2016
26 Jun
'16
10:14 a.m.
Hi.
Can anyone give a definitive date for when Bill Joy's csh first got out
of Berkeley? I suspect it's in the 1976 - 1977 time frame, but I don't
know for sure.
Thanks!
Arnold
26 Jun
26 Jun
4:30 p.m.
1BSD did not contain csh, and was officially released March 9 1978. It
contained something called "a shell" which appears to be a predecessor
to csh, but was still compiled as sh. The README on 1BSD from Bill Joy
states:
Wed Oct 19, 1977
This directory contains the source for a shell.
It requires floating point to do the time command which is built-in
so you will have to cc it -f on machines without floating point.
It also requires a version 7 C compiler.
Accurate documentation is in the file "sh.6" to be nroffed with
/usr/man/man0/naa and a new "version 7" nroff.
This shell requires the "htmp" data base also used by the editor
"ex".
If you do not set it up so that the "sethome" command is done by
"login"
then you should use the old "osethome" routine in ../s6 rather than
"sethome"
and reenable the execl of this sethome in the file "sh.c" (with the
correct
pathname).
2BSD did include csh and was first officially released May 1979. I'm
sure there were informal advance copies of csh sent out sooner. I recall
csh already being on the UCB systems when I arrived in September of 1978.
I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer of 1979. The folks at
Bell Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone through a painful
conversion from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell, and would never
consider another conversion. csh was (mostly) upward compatible with
the Mashey shell, unlike the Bourne shell. (This was in the Bell Labs
Computer Center, where I was a summer employee, not Research or the PWB
group, which I'm sure felt the same way.)
Mary Ann
On 06/26/2016 03:14 AM, Aharon Robbins wrote:
Hi.
Can anyone give a definitive date for when Bill Joy's csh first got out
of Berkeley? I suspect it's in the 1976 - 1977 time frame, but I don't
know for sure.
Thanks!
Arnold
6:14 p.m.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:30:39AM -0700, Mary Ann Horton wrote:
I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer of
1979. The folks at Bell
Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone through a painful conversion
from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell
I used csh for a while before ksh became available. It was an improvement
over the Bourne shell, IMO, but once ksh came out I went back to Bourne
shell syntax. And now bash is pretty nice.
--lm
6:32 p.m.
I detested the CSH syntax. In order to beat back the CSH proponents at BRL, I added JOB
control to the SV (and later SVR2) Bourne Shell. Then they beat on me for not having
command like editing in (a la TCSH), so I added that. This shell went out as /bin/sh in
the Doug Gwyn SV-on-BSD release so every once and a while over the years I trip across a
“Ron shell” usually people who were running Mach-derived things that ran my shell as
/bin/sh.
On Jun 26, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Larry McVoy
<lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:30:39AM -0700, Mary Ann Horton wrote:
I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer
of 1979. The folks at Bell
Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone through a painful conversion
from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell
I used csh for a while before ksh became available. It was an improvement
over the Bourne shell, IMO, but once ksh came out I went back to Bourne
shell syntax. And now bash is pretty nice.
--lm 
8:43 p.m.
Ronald Natalie scripsit:
I detested the CSH syntax.
Tom Christiansen's 1994 flame "csh Programming Considered Harmful"
can be found at <http://www.perl.com/doc/FMTEYEWTK/versus/csh.whynot>.
Current csh releases have undoubtedly fixed many of the complaints,
but as TC notes, many cannot be fixed.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
27 Jun
27 Jun
12:59 a.m.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 04:43:26PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Ronald Natalie scripsit:
Tom and I went to undergrad together, we were both in the UW-Madison CS
department. Sad to say, I've lost touch with him and googling is not
finding him (other than wikipedia). Anyone know what he is doing these
days?
--lm
I detested the CSH syntax.
Tom Christiansen's 1994 flame "csh Programming Considered Harmful"
can be found at <http://www.perl.com/doc/FMTEYEWTK/versus/csh.whynot>.
Current csh releases have undoubtedly fixed many of the complaints,
but as TC notes, many cannot be fixed.
1:11 a.m.
Larry McVoy scripsit:
Tom and I went to undergrad together, we were both in
the UW-Madison CS
department. Sad to say, I've lost touch with him and googling is not
finding him (other than wikipedia). Anyone know what he is doing these
days?
Googling with the date filter set to "last year" gives us a lot of other
Tom Christiansens, but also http://stackoverflow.com/users/471272/tchrist,
updated last August.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion
that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive
activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity,
but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be
taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version
11:27 a.m.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Ronald Natalie wrote:
I added JOB control to the SV (and later SVR2) Bourne
Shell.
Then they beat on me for not having command like editing in (a la TCSH),
so I added that.
How interesting, I will try to bother you (perhaps directly) about
in-depth informations :-)
I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and
Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing.
I found two interesting references about this:
- Ash announcement, "A reimplementation of the System V shell":
"I conclude by listing a few features that I have omitted intentionally.
3. History. It seems to me that the csh history mechanism is
mostly a response to the deficiencies of UNIX terminal I/O.
Those of you running 4.2 BSD should try out atty (which I am
posting to the net at the same time as ash) and see if you
still want history."
- From an article from D. Korn, "ksh - An Extensible High Level Language":
"Originally the idea of adding command line editing to ksh was
rejected in the hope that line editing would move into the terminal
driver. However, when it became clear that this was not likely to
happen soon, both line editing modes were integrated into ksh and
made optional so that they could be disabled on systems that provided
editing as part of the terminal interface."
I believe it's a real pity that it hasn't been implemented in terminal
drivers in general.
Or do I overlook possible disadvantages? What could be downsides,
apart from possibly inconsistent behaviour across systems?
Sven
12:47 p.m.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Sven Mascheck wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Ronald
Natalie wrote:
There are a couple variants of the Almquist shell (an old one called
"cash", and one I think FreeBSD uses) which have readline-like history.
-uso.
I added JOB control to the SV (and later SVR2)
Bourne Shell.
Then they beat on me for not having command like editing in (a la TCSH),
so I added that.
How interesting, I will try to bother you (perhaps directly) about
in-depth informations :-)
I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and
Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing. 
2:58 p.m.
Sven Mascheck <mascheck(a)in-ulm.de> wrote:
"Originally the idea of adding command line
editing to ksh was
rejected in the hope that line editing would move into the terminal
driver. However, when it became clear that this was not likely to
happen soon, both line editing modes were integrated into ksh and
made optional so that they could be disabled on systems that provided
editing as part of the terminal interface."
I believe it's a real pity that it hasn't been implemented in terminal
drivers in general.
Or do I overlook possible disadvantages? What could be downsides,
apart from possibly inconsistent behaviour across systems?
It was in the terminal driver from VMS ;-)
In Summer 1984, I noticed that this feature worked in a similar way as my test
implementation from 1982 and then worked on an integrated implementation for
"bsh" at H. Berthold AG. The person that helped me in 1984 was Peter Teuchert.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schilling(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
4:22 p.m.
Sven Mascheck scripsit:
3. History. It seems to me that the csh history
mechanism is
mostly a response to the deficiencies of UNIX terminal I/O.
Those of you running 4.2 BSD should try out atty (which I am
posting to the net at the same time as ash) and see if you
still want history."
I personally could not live without !!, ^foo^bar, !foo, etc.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer.
--Peter da Silva
4:35 p.m.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, John Cowan wrote:
Sven Mascheck scripsit:
Same.
That's a big reason why I still use bash even though ksh is faster and
lighter and otherwise works just as well.
-uso.
3. History. It seems to me that the csh
history mechanism is
mostly a response to the deficiencies of UNIX terminal I/O.
Those of you running 4.2 BSD should try out atty (which I am
posting to the net at the same time as ash) and see if you
still want history."
I personally could not live without !!, ^foo^bar, !foo, etc. 
8 p.m.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Sven Mascheck wrote:
I've always been intrigued by the fact that
traditional Bourne shell and
Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing.
I hated CSH, and only used it when forced to; I used a utility called
"screen" for my job-switching needs, and was really happy when KSH came
along (then ZSH).
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."
8:33 p.m.
On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Sven Mascheck
<mascheck(a)in-ulm.de> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Ronald Natalie wrote:
Sure, it was a long time ago, but I’ll tell you what I remember. The one thing I do
remember is that the SV /bin/sh was
written in these horrendous macros that sort of made it look like algol or something.
When the SVR2 shell came out,
someone (not Bourne obviously) had undone all those in favor of the native C++
if/else/while blocking.
I added JOB control to the SV (and later SVR2)
Bourne Shell.
Then they beat on me for not having command like editing in (a la TCSH),
so I added that.
How interesting, I will try to bother you (perhaps directly) about
in-depth informations :-)
I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and
Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing.
Command line editing might have been implemented in the driver as enhanced editing in
“cooked” mode, but the history
is a bit more context specific.
9:02 p.m.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Ronald Natalie wrote:
That was inherited from the original V7 Bourne shell. And "horrendous"
doesn't even begin to describe that disaster of coding.
On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Sven Mascheck
<mascheck(a)in-ulm.de> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Ronald Natalie wrote:
Sure, it was a long time ago, but I’ll tell you what I remember. The
one thing I do remember is that the SV /bin/sh was written in these
horrendous macros that sort of made it look like algol or something. I added JOB control to the SV (and later SVR2)
Bourne Shell.
Then they beat on me for not having command like editing in (a la TCSH),
so I added that.
How interesting, I will try to bother you (perhaps directly) about
in-depth informations :-)
When the SVR2 shell came out, someone (not Bourne
obviously) had undone
all those in favor of the native C++ if/else/while blocking.
I kind-of like the MS-DOS 5 approach of having a separate tool that the
shell can optionally link to that provides those capabilities.
*ducks and runs*
-uso.
I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and
Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing.
Command line editing might have been implemented in the driver as
enhanced editing in “cooked” mode, but the history is a bit more context
specific.
9:20 p.m.
Ronald Natalie scripsit:
Sure, it was a long time ago, but I’ll tell you what I
remember.
The one thing I do remember is that the SV /bin/sh was written in
these horrendous macros that sort of made it look like algol or
something.
I've always wondered what would have happened if Algol 68 (brought back
from England by Bourne) had out-competed C at Bell Labs, and had become
the dominant programming language of Unix. Probably the commercial
world would have standardized on Pascal, something that almost happened
(the x86 chip is optimized for Pascal in several ways).
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
"But I am the real Strider, fortunately," he said, looking down at them
with his face softened by a sudden smile. "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn,
and if by life or death I can save you, I will."
9:28 p.m.
Hard to believe the 8086 chip was “optimized” for anything. The instruction set was
designed for programming terminals.
The iapx32 was designed to run higher level languages (Ada) but despite how “nicely” it
implemented this, it couldn’t counter the fact that it was molasses slow doing anything.
It was easier to build craftier compilers than trying to burn the smarts into silicon.
On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:20 PM, John Cowan
<cowan(a)mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
Ronald Natalie scripsit:
Sure, it was a long time ago, but I’ll tell you
what I remember.
The one thing I do remember is that the SV /bin/sh was written in
these horrendous macros that sort of made it look like algol or
something.
I've always wondered what would have happened if Algol 68 (brought back
from England by Bourne) had out-competed C at Bell Labs, and had become
the dominant programming language of Unix. Probably the commercial
world would have standardized on Pascal, something that almost happened
(the x86 chip is optimized for Pascal in several ways).
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
"But I am the real Strider, fortunately," he said, looking down at them
with his face softened by a sudden smile. "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn,
and if by life or death I can save you, I will."
9:45 p.m.
Ronald Natalie scripsit:
Hard to believe the 8086 chip was “optimized” for
anything.
The instruction set was designed for programming terminals.
Well, yes. But the four separate address spaces work fine for Pascal,
where it is always statically known whether a pointer is to code,
global data, the stack (internal only), or the heap. For C they were
nothing but a nuisance: C can handle separate I & D space, but that's all.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
What asininity could I have uttered that they applaud me thus?
--Phocion, Greek orator
28 Jun
28 Jun
6:49 a.m.
On 2016-Jun-27 16:28:14 -0500, Ronald Natalie <ron(a)ronnatalie.com> wrote:
Hard to believe the 8086 chip was “optimized” for
anything. The instruction set was designed for programming terminals.
I think "designed" is being generous. The closest to "designed" would
have been for a calculation but then the 4004 grew warts and the warts grew warts.
The iapx32 was designed to run higher level languages
(Ada)
That was the iapx432. No relationship to the x86.
And, whilst we're dealing with what-if's, what if the M68K had taken off,
rather than the 8086. IBM had a M68K box in the same timeframe as the PC.
--
Peter Jeremy
7:51 a.m.
Thanks everyone for the answers, esp. to Mary Ann for the definitive dates.
My story is similar to most everyone else's. I was exposed to csh on
4.1 BSD but was so horrified by the syntax that I preferred to do without
job control and use the Bourne shell.
Later on when I was at Georgia Tech we got the BRL dist and I used Ron's
job control shell. I wrote a csh-style history mechanism for it and backported
that and the job control to the V7 sh and posted diffs to USENET so that people
without a SV license could benefit.
From there I went to ksh for many years, and thence to
Bash. I abandoned
the csh-history-for-sh stuff as soon as I got ksh with vi editing
mode
and have never looked back. Circa 1990 I banged on the bash/readline code
to make its vi mode more like ksh's.
How well I remember Bournegol and how happy I was when I saw that SVR2 had
gotten rid of it.
With respect to history in the terminal, the Bell Labs guys did that by
making the terminal smarter, with the Blit. I had one but the load it
put on our poor vax 11/780 was awesome.
Arnold
27 Jun
27 Jun
9:29 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016, at 16:33, Ronald Natalie wrote:
Command line editing might have been implemented in
the driver as
enhanced editing in “cooked” mode, but the history
is a bit more context specific.
MS Windows does a kind of halfway decent job of this by having a
separate history per program, which I don't think requires any
information the terminal driver doesn't have access to (the process that
is trying to read from the terminal, and the binary running in that
process)
28 Jun
28 Jun
2:47 p.m.
Sven Mascheck <mascheck(a)in-ulm.de> wrote:
I've always been intrigued by the fact that traditional Bourne shell and
Almquist shell haven't implemented history or command line editing.
The Almquist shell had history support added for (I think) 4.4BSD
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/csrg/bin/sh/histedit.c?view=log
It's a required feature for POSIX sh, though I don't know how far back
that requirement goes...
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot(a)dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode
Fair Isle, Faeroes, Southeast Iceland: Southwesterly backing easterly or
southeasterly, 4 or 5 increasing 6 at times. Moderate, occasionally rough for
a time. Rain or showers. Good, occasionally poor.
26 Jun
26 Jun
7:41 p.m.
Interesting... Horton's timing sounds right because I'm pretty sure we had
some sort of Berkeley shell @ before CMU had 2BSD on the v6++ systems in
1978 - (I have to ask him, Klone must have been the one that brought it
over to Mellon Institute ). I state that because I remember trying to play
with it as well as another hacked shell V6 (I think from Harvard) around
that time. I was fascinated by the idea of being able to change the
default command system, which no other OS I was using I could do same
(TOPS*, VMS, TSS, Exec/8). But I remember I didn't like some of choices
of the Berkeley shell's syntax and tended to avoid it/could not figure it
out. Within a year or so V7 showed up there after with Bourne shell and
I was happy with that.
A few years later, I did switch to typing to the csh when I got to UCB, but
that was not until after the MIT job control stuff had been spliced into
the BSD kernel (Horton & Kleckner were probably the ones that convinced me
to learn it). With job control I became a fan, but never warmed up to the
programming syntax. I picked up the mantra that I still consider wise --
"type to Joy and program to Bourne." This is comfortable for the ROMS in
the muscles of my fingers, but my scripts are portable.
Clem
PS To this day (like about a month ago), if I need to hack on my .login
script when I move sites (I have some site specific stuff in .login and
.profiles), I have to grab the cshell man page so I don't screw up the
syntax.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:30:39AM -0700, Mary Ann
Horton wrote:
I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer
of 1979. The folks at
Bell
Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone
through a painful conversion
from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell
I used csh for a while before ksh became available. It was an improvement
over the Bourne shell, IMO, but once ksh came out I went back to Bourne
shell syntax. And now bash is pretty nice.
--lm
27 Jun
27 Jun
10:31 a.m.
Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
A few years later, I did switch to typing to the csh
when I got to UCB, but
that was not until after the MIT job control stuff had been spliced into
the BSD kernel (Horton & Kleckner were probably the ones that convinced me
to learn it). With job control I became a fan, but never warmed up to the
programming syntax. I picked up the mantra that I still consider wise --
"type to Joy and program to Bourne." This is comfortable for the ROMS in
the muscles of my fingers, but my scripts are portable.
Job control of course was an important improvement. I took the idea and
implemented in my bsh in 1985.
Now looking back, it is interesting, that there are just four shells that
implement support for vfork():
- csh - the first
- bsh since 1985
- ksh vfork() probably since 1984, jobcontrol apparently since 1982.
- bosh (my recent Bourne Shell) since 2014
But on a decent OS, vfork() helps a lot to speed up the shell.
On Solaris, fork() is copy-on-write based but still 3x slower than vfork().
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schilling(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
1:01 p.m.
vfork() is of use on non-paged (and poorly implemented paging) systems. If you
implemented the copy-on-write fork() behavior, you’d not need the vfork KLUDGE.
1:15 p.m.
Ronald Natalie <ron(a)ronnatalie.com> wrote:
|vfork() is of use on non-paged (and poorly implemented paging) system\
|s. If you implemented the copy-on-write fork() behavior, you’d not\
| need the vfork KLUDGE.
I think there is currently going on some (i haven't really a glue)
virtually mapped stack in Linux (thread around [1]), and it seems
vfork() there doesn't even copy the page table. So that seems to
be a measurable difference.
[1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2016/06/21/10
--steffen
3:17 p.m.
Ronald Natalie <ron(a)ronnatalie.com> wrote:
vfork() is of use on non-paged (and poorly implemented
paging) systems. If you implemented the copy-on-write fork() behavior, you???d not need
the vfork KLUDGE.
This is what the Linux people believe. As a result, they have a vfork()
implementation that collects all pitfalls from fork() and vfork() ;-)
The basic difference is:
- With a copy-on-write fork, you copy an address space description and
need to set up a set of new MMU PTEs.
- With vfork, you borrow the address space descrition and the MMU PTEs
from the parent.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schilling(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
1:39 p.m.
New subject: Bizarre job control, was csh
I wrote a shell quite a while ago, based on a friend's shell and also the shell in
Marc Rochkind's book. It was portable across a lot of systems but small enough to fit
on Minix.
I used ptrace() to implement job control on Minix. See
ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/pub/Wish/wish_internals.pdf
Cheers, Warren
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
3 p.m.
New subject: Bizarre job control, was csh
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Warren Toomey wrote:
I wrote a shell quite a while ago, based on a
friend's shell and also the shell in Marc Rochkind's book. It was portable
across a lot of systems but small enough to fit on Minix.
I used ptrace() to implement job control on Minix. See
ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/pub/Wish/wish_internals.pdf
Cheers, Warren
I tried a couple times to figure out how to implement a Bourne shell, and
just couldn't figure it out. But then, I was never much of a programmer.
-uso.
3:13 p.m.
New subject: Bizarre job control, was csh
Steve Nickolas <usotsuki(a)buric.co> wrote:
I tried a couple times to figure out how to implement
a Bourne shell, and
just couldn't figure it out. But then, I was never much of a programmer.
It is hard and you cannot do it from just reading the POSIX standard.
This is because the POSIX standard tries to write descriptions in an abstract
notation that missleads people that did never see a working implementation
before.
After a few years of maintaining the Bourne Shell, I would know how to do it but
I am not interested to do it from scratch.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schilling(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
3:23 p.m.
New subject: Bizarre job control, was csh
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Steve Nickolas <usotsuki(a)buric.co> wrote:
Eh. I had a specific reason for doing it that most people would find
idiotic - I was using OSes (DOS - mainly on a Tandy 1000, which in no way
could ever hope to handle DJGPP - and Win32) that weren't remotely POSIX
and I wanted to make them feel more Unixy without outright *emulating
Unix*.
-uso.
I tried a couple times to figure out how to
implement a Bourne shell, and
just couldn't figure it out. But then, I was never much of a programmer.
It is hard and you cannot do it from just reading the POSIX standard.
This is because the POSIX standard tries to write descriptions in an abstract
notation that missleads people that did never see a working implementation
before.
After a few years of maintaining the Bourne Shell, I would know how to do it but
I am not interested to do it from scratch.
Jörg
26 Jun
26 Jun
8:58 p.m.
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016, Larry McVoy wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:30:39AM -0700, Mary Ann
Horton wrote:
For some daft reason my first foray onto the Unix command line was tcsh,
and later I switched to bash, which is still my primary choice - though I
don't mind using any other Korn-type shell, long as I got my "emacs
editing" mode (although the real ksh's tab completion is clunkier than
bash's).
Using a Bourne shell that doesn't have a line editor is a pain in the
keester, but if I must, I can deal.
I have no idea how to use csh, and if I'm set up with csh as my default
shell the first thing I'll do is try to switch it to bash or ksh!
-uso.
I brought csh with me to Bell Labs in the summer
of 1979. The folks at Bell
Labs recoiled in horror: they had just gone through a painful conversion
from the Mashey shell to the Bourne shell
I used csh for a while before ksh became available. It was an improvement
over the Bourne shell, IMO, but once ksh came out I went back to Bourne
shell syntax. And now bash is pretty nice.
--lm
27 Jun
27 Jun
10:03 a.m.
Aharon Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
Can anyone give a definitive date for when Bill
Joy's csh first got out
of Berkeley? I suspect it's in the 1976 - 1977 time frame, but I don't
know for sure.
In 1977 (published November 23), there was "ashell" with this
"READ_ME":
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Wed Oct 19, 1977
This directory contains the source for a shell.
It requires floating point to do the time command which is built-in
so you will have to cc it -f on machines without floating point.
It also requires a version 7 C compiler.
Accurate documentation is in the file "sh.6" to be nroffed with
/usr/man/man0/naa and a new "version 7" nroff.
This shell requires the "htmp" data base also used by the editor
"ex".
If you do not set it up so that the "sethome" command is done by
"login"
then you should use the old "osethome" routine in ../s6 rather than
"sethome"
and reenable the execl of this sethome in the file "sh.c" (with the correct
pathname).
Bill Joy
CS Division
Department of EE and CS
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, California 94704
(415) 524-4510 [HOME]
(415) 642-4948 [SCHOOL]
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Given that ashell/sh.c contains:
/*
* Shell
*
* Modified by Bill Joy
* UC Berkeley 1976/1977
*
it was most likely based on the Thompson shell.
Here is the start of the man page:
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
SH(VI) 9/15/77 SH(VI)
NAME
sh - a shell (command interpreter)
SYNOPSIS
sh [ -V ] [ -v ] [ -t ] [ -c ] [ -i ] [ name [ arg ... ] ]
DESCRIPTION
Sh is a command interpreter. It arranges and interprets
command lines and the contents of command files. It is a
modification of the standard shell sh (I), and almost com-
pletely upward compatible therewith. The intent, in working
on a new shell, is to provide an environment which is more
easily tailored to the wishes of each individual user. Most
new features of this shell, especially the alias feature,
are toward this end. Later versions of this shell may
include improvements to the command language of the shell
and allow more easy repetition of commands. The intent here
is to make the command language more resemble a high-level
language - C being the natural choice for UNIX, and to pro-
vide some means of repeating modified commands without
retyping, perhaps akin to the INTERLISP redo feature. The
eventual goal is a C-shell, csh (or ``seashell'' if you
prefer.)
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
BTW: csh was an improvement for most shells from that time, but it lacks a
decent history editor.
In 1982, I wrote my first experimental history editor that supports cursor keys
but called the commands via system() and in 1984, I integrated this concept
into a shell called "bsh" that we had at H. Berthold AG on an OS called
"VBERTOS" that was based on "UNOS" - the first UNIX clone.
A csh port for UNOS was available around 1982, but with the availability of
a shell with integrated history editor, other shells seemed to be of no
real interest. So around September 1984, people at H.Berthold AG stopped using
csh even though bsh had similar problems in the shell command language as
seen with csh.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schilling(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
2860
days inactive
2862
days old
35 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
Aharon Robbins -
arnold＠skeeve.com
-
Clem Cole -
Dave Horsfall -
John Cowan -
Larry McVoy -
Mary Ann Horton -
Peter Jeremy -
Random832 -
Ronald Natalie -
schily＠schily.net -
Steffen Nurpmeso -
Steve Nickolas -
Sven Mascheck -
Tony Finch -
Warren Toomey