On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 01:04:26PM -0600, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > So please, let the flam..... er ... opini.... er.... compar...just tell me > what you like about each.
I don't care much for bash. I find it as antique as the Bourne shell was
when the Korn shell released. There are reasons for evolution, you know.
Here are the reasons ZSH is my primary shell, and has been since early
2006:
* Floating point arithmetic
* Associative arrays (hashes, dictionaries, whatever you call them)
* Highly extensible
* Regularly updated
* yTpo correction on the fly
* Superb tab-completion
* Built-in pager
* Powerful file globbing
* Improved Bourne-style scripting language
* With loads of modules, functions, builtins, etc.
* Outstanding documentation
* Multi-line editing
* Sharing of command history across sessions
* $RPROMPT (right-hand side prompt)
* Various compatibility modes (ksh, csh, sh, bash, etc)
* Maturity (actively developed since 1990)
Probably the biggest disadvantage to ZSH is its over-complexity. It
provides you with every switch, nob and button a shell could practically
give you. As a result, it can be extremely overwhelming. Also, it's not
installed by default on most GNU/Linux and BSD operating systems, so you
might feel like you're paddling upstream everytime you sit at a new box
(which is actually quite rare for me).
--
. o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
. . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
