Programming

I could never get into csh, but then again, I didn't give it that much of a chance...
I like sh/ksh/bash... I use bash most of the time, but on systems that don't have it, I usually end up with ksh.

I think you will find that csh is particularly popular with 'pre-Linux' programmers.
I think bash is as powerful or maybe even more powerful, it's stated purpose was to 'unite' all the most powerful shells in one, sh+ksh+csh+
But it 'looks' more like ksh.
Anyway, I guess today this is only relevant in two situations, both dealing with 'old' stuff:
running old scripts made for csh
running on an old machine where every byte counts

Atle, aspiring to become an old fart

Heh, yeah. My first Unix experiences came from the "free" Unices (BSD, Linux, etc...), so bash was the first shell I ever used. I do think it feels a lot more like ksh than it does any other shell, although I still do not have extensive knowledge of any shell, let alone multiple interpreters. Even though I've been pre-biased against csh, at least Bill Joy got vi going (I think it was him...) .

In the Good Old Days (TM) shells were introcuced to us by the file

/usr/share/doc/usd/04.csh/paper.ascii.gz

on a FreeBSD machine
(I can put it on atle.linux-site.net if you want to)

If you read it, but you must either put yourself in a 'newbie-ham' (is fun) or skip the things that explain what a shell is and how to do 'ls' - you will understad why we were fascinated by csh.

And you may actually want to know it well enough to be able to deploy on a system where csh is the default shell - you quite often see things like

setup.sh setup.csh

plus a weird shell called batsh or something (setup.bat)