Re: scsh.net broken link(s)

Anthony Carrico wrote:
> Nunez Steve wrote:
>> Whilst I'm here, is there any active development of this shell going on?
> 
> I don't know. Sunterlib has been dormant for a long time. I don't use
> scsh much these days because of a lack of 64bit support.

Besides the lack of 64bit support, I summarized my reasons, why I don't use scsh
any more in this rant:
http://www.lysium.de/blog/archives/215-Why-I-dont-use-scsh-as-a-scripting-language-anymore.html

As a short summary, writing and debugging scripts written with scsh is awful:
lots of quirky extra syntax to remember to write a script and error messages
with no line numbers and contexts.

There are more viable alternatives than scsh out there to write scripts, which
also allow functional-style programming and access to the OS. It's sad, but
that's the way it is (at least for me).

-- 
Andreas.