3 ms·

With bash and all of it's improvements over its' predecessors and rivals (csh), I'm not sure what need there is to throw resources at new shells such as zsh and

• aaplok 3y ago
  In fairness, zsh is only newer than bash by a year. Both are about 34 years old.
• aeadio 3y ago
  Bash and Zsh are both just about as old as one another. Zsh came out less than a year after Bash. Both derive most of their improvements from ksh, which is why they look superficially similar and many scripts are cross-compatible. Zsh arguably took the language improvements much further than Bash, ie look at [1] and [2] in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39642678 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39642678. Bash made the understandable but very regrettable decision of being only a superset of POSIX sh, which means it carries along all the footguns, like word splitting by default. Zsh is also eminently flexible and scriptable, with many core features (like most line editor functionality) exposed as hooks that custom scripts can extend or change. Zsh is also notably faster than Bash. It's one of the great disappointments of open source history that Bash largely took off as the default shell everywhere and the default shell scripting language, despite Zsh being superior in just about every way.