On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Aaron Toponce <aaron.topo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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). > > The typo correction, history sharing and associative arrays seem like very convincing features. Can you elaborate on the multi-line editing feature and the superb tab completion? Thanks, Robert
-------------------- 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
