Misplaced Pages

It may help to explain that if you're allowed to use the system() routine, here's all it takes to create a complete command processor in C:

#include <stdio.h>

#include <stdlib.h>

int main( )

{

char command;

while ( gets( command ) ) system( command );

}

Msnicki (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

got it. I'll note the buffer overflow issue just to sound moderately educated :-). Thanks for taking the time to explain what's (probably) going on! Hobit (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy requires wp:No_original_research, we need

WP:RS. In Sriranga Veeraraghavan's article, the subtitle is "Ch is a combined C shell and IDE". is it appropriate to remove "c" from c shell? the command "ls c:/windows", "int i=5, *p", "echo $WINDIR", "getenv("WINDIR")", "`ls`", "33+344*333" works fine in ch shell. For me, C shell refers to the C language shell in the article, not csh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.24.205 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The vendor is welcome to encourage users to call it anything they like. But here on Misplaced Pages, a C shell is something specific; we have a whole article describing features which Ch does not provide. Ch does provides a command line interface (by wrappering whatever came with the OS to run external commands) and qualifies as a shell, just not a C shell. I am unable to verify the subtitle and anything else in the Veeraraghavan article; it's a dead link. Msnicki (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link. C shell can mean either csh or ch shell. csh shell uses a shell programming language not related to C. ch shell is more related to C and can run C expression, statement and functions directly. It is more natural to call Ch shell as C shell. Since wikipedia has the entry for C shell referring to csh, does it make sense to create an index for C shell pointing to both csh and ch? Can you change back to "C shell" since it is the original author's quote? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifidia (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

From the Veeraraghavan article, "Ch, unlike other shells, such as the Bourne-Again Shell (bash), the Korn Shell (ksh), or the C Shell (csh), uses the syntax of the C programming language." It looks to me like your source believes that while Ch is a shell, it is definitely not a C shell. And, no, you should not disambiguate C shell to also point to Ch. Ch is not a C shell by any WP:COMMONNAME definition. Msnicki (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

well, I think you are partially right. IMO, what Veeraraghavan means is that Ch is not a csh C Shell. However, it is a C language C Shell. That is why he put "Ch is a combined C shell and IDE" in the article's sub-title. As a book author of "Sams Teach Yourself Shell Programming in 24 Hours (2nd Edition)", I assume that he knows csh C shell pretty well and there is little chance to make a mistake. Comparting to any other programming languages such as php or perl etc, csh language doesn't look more close or like C. csh shell programming is not related to C except that its name is called C Shell. Wifidia (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The moment you paste "C" and "shell" next to each other as "C shell" in a description of Ch, you can be pretty sure I'm never going to agree. We have an article here on Misplaced Pages describing what a "C shell" is that represents WP:consensus and WP:COMMONNAME. Ch is a shell. Perhaps it should be called the "Ch shell". But Ch is not a "C shell". That term is taken. I don't care how much the vendor might like to muddle the matter in his marketing materials among consumers who may not know what a C shell really is. Misplaced Pages is not here to parrot marketing claims, especially when both the facts and reliable sources say those claims are wrong. Further, the argument you're making amounts, making assumptions and estimates of chance, amounts to WP:Original research, drawing your own conclusions that aren't in the sources. Msnicki (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

COI

Several editors have raised concerns on Chuser's talk page and on the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard that a major contributor to the page, Chuser, may be a single purpose account with a close connection to the subject. Msnicki (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Noting that Chuser has been asked more than once, without giving a straightforward answer, I'm curious what procedures might apply to this situation TEDickey (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The advice offered on the noticeboard was that it's fair to ask about the relationship and to express concern, giving reasons, but not fair to go beyond that to insist on an answer or to hound the individual. Msnicki (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

However, maintenance tags aren't to be removed without a consensus - which would be discussed here. TEDickey (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm planning on removing the notability and sources tag (but leaving the COI tag). No one has really explained why the sources that were found acceptable at AfD are now not enough. The COI on the sources was pretty much rejected as an issue at the AfD. So I'd say we have enough sources... I'm guessing folks object, but I'd really like to hear a reason other than those raised at the AfD (which I think a wider consensus rejected) or I guess some reason why the consensus at AfD isn't enough. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though I was the most vocal in questioning the sources in the AfD, I agree with Hobit on this point, which is why, when the outcome of the AfD was keep, I removed the notability hat and was surprised when it reappeared. We use consensus to decide things here and that sometimes means things don't go your way. The consensus at AfD, which turned on this specific question of notability, was that the sources were sufficient. I think we should accept that and move on. Msnicki (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. If someone objects feel free to revert, but please address why the AfD doesn't support said removal. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ch Program

How much it easy to run a program of ch program on any operating system and how much it can contribute to perform the programming work like the c++, c#, java and many are doing to day.

I think it Will not be much easier for the people who new to ch programing so i am writing something about it,see below paragraph.

Ch is written in C and runs under Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, AIX, Solaris, QNX, and HP-UX. It supports C90 and major C99 features, but it does not support the full set of C++ features. C99 complex number, IEEE-754 floating-point arithmetic, and variable-length array features were supported in Ch before they became part of the C99 standard. An article published by CRN named Ch as notable among C-based virtual machines for its functionality and the availability of third-party libraries.