Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 10:06:28 -1000 From: parv@pair.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which is the basic differences between the shells? Message-ID: <20100606200628.GA8748@holstein.holy.cow> In-Reply-To: <20100606182148.GB28095@guilt.hydra> References: <AANLkTinG745GjOaZKLT1TfKgqVi6VHt9-ciHWQUY57VT@mail.gmail.com> <20100605231715.GD69990@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <20100606163136.GA27788@guilt.hydra> <20100606175043.GA46089@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <20100606182148.GB28095@guilt.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
in message <20100606182148.GB28095@guilt.hydra>,
wrote Chad Perrin thusly...
...
> > > On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 04:17:15PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I like zsh, because it's sh-compatible, brings in a lot of
> > > > the good ideas from csh/tcsh, and the license appears to be
> > > > copyfree rather than copyleft.
...
> I'm curious about why you prefer zsh for an interactive shell.
> What zsh features would you miss if you used tcsh instead (what
> I've been using)?
>
> I'm always willing to be convinced to try something better.
I cannot say about the tcsh features.
I switched from bash to zsh mainly for excellent vi-mode editing
support, more so over multiple lines. ksh & bash were horrible in
that respect.
Recently I have found that regular expression like [a-d] (instead of
{a,b,c,d}) in file name generation work as expected. zsh has more
ways to help file name generation which I have not looked into yet.
And of course, as stated earlier, compatibility between a bourne
shell script & an interactive shell helps immensely while
developing|debugging a script.
- parv
--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100606200628.GA8748>