Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site teldata.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!mce
From: mce@teldata.UUCP (Brian McElhinney)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Shell programming style -- a plea for better shell scripts
Message-ID: <226@teldata.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-Feb-84 19:14:33 EST
Article-I.D.: teldata.226
Posted: Sat Feb 11 19:14:33 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 00:32:47 EST
References: <5684@mcvax.UUCP>
Organization: Teltone Corp., Kirkland, WA
Lines: 5

*Sigh*  I agree that sh is much more portable, but reading sh scripts
is painful...  "case" and "esac"???  UNIX supports C, a standard UNIX
shell should at least resemble C.  I never have understood why the Bourne
shell looks like Algol.  (Not that I think a change is possible, just that
this is one more reason UNIX is not easily accepted)