That said, it
was easier (to me) to write full-on apps and utilities in
DCL than sh or csh.
[...] Fortunately, most folks seem to
agree and csh is pretty niche these days. That's not to say there aren't
very enthusiastic users of csh, too.
*tcsh*, yes. I now find it very difficult to use vanilla csh, even though
(being a product of the University of California) that was the first shell
I ever used as an undergraduate.
It would be a
fairer comparison to develop a complex app in Perl vs DCL
(Perl would win, but it has a lot going for it).
Feature wise, I don't see much of a comparison. Perl would trounce DCL in
a comparison involving functionality. It's not a fair fight or apples to
apples in my mind at all. Plus, Perl isn't a CLI interpreter (though I
suppose you could try it that way). DCL is. Hence, I'd compare it to shell
script. However, you don't have as many opportunities to write line-noise
in DCL (joke!). :-)
TMTOWTDI. (Actually having written full apps in Perl.)
ObOnTopic: I've always found DCL too damn wordy, but I appreciate its
precision. I keep a VAXstation 3100 around just to remind myself "how the
other half live."
--
------------------------------------ personal:
http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems *
www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at
floodgap.com
-- He who Laughs, Lasts. ------------------------------------------------------