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)