It can actually be very difficult to "walk away" from this style of shell in established Unix environments, which I know from experience. (And I would love to

It can actually be very difficult to "walk away" from this style of shell in established Unix environments, which I know from experience. (And I would love to avoid tcsh, as I have my own list of grievances that go far beyond what was listed on that web page.) For some reason -- and I've witnessed this multiple times -- there has been a tendency to use tcsh as a baseline, and then build stuff on top of it that lasts for years. After awhile, too many scripts assume they can simply "source" a csh-style file to set their environment variables and aliases. And administrators may not even offer standard login files for other shells (which is sad, considering that Bourne-style allows many more shells to work). Pretty soon, your choices are to grudgingly use tcsh, where everything works as intended; or, to use a different shell, and see obscure problems from time to time because of missing settings. So basically, nearly 15 years after this article, I can say that tcsh is alive and well in Unix environments and "can't" go anywhere if they were unfortunate enough to use it as a baseline. Technically there are ways forward, of course, but nothing ever seems "broken enough" in tcsh to warrant the effort to change it.