On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:21 AM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/06/2012 09:28 AM, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
On 6 August 2012 08:26, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
OT: Talking with an archer on irc about this thread and differences between bash and zsh yesterday, he told me he uses zsh for a long time now and it has quality improvements over bash like better code organization (he told me zsh is modular), light on resources (I expected zsh to be heavier) and that even zsh is speedier than bash O_o May be I need to give zsh another review?
I was only being a little bit snarky yesterday. But in truth, it isn't just zsh features I prefer. For me, the ways in which zsh is preferably incompatible with bash aren't just in zsh features (which are indeed very cool) but in the ways that it interprets command lines--ways which I think zsh handles more intuitively correctly.
But that latter is an issue. It may break an (I assume) unknown number of existing scripts if used for sh, so I think the likely conclusion would be that *both* bash (for sh compatibility) and zsh would have to be installed. I'm not opposed to this, but I'll certainly concede that there are valid points to be made in opposition.
In true Arch fashion, some of the community would need to test out exactly what breaks =). Perhaps an AUR package which replaces/provides bash and consists of a symlink to zsh would be a test suitable for that (not that I'm likely to try that out anytime soon...)