Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 10:50:43 -0700 From: Chip Camden <sterling@camdensoftware.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which is the basic differences between the shells? Message-ID: <20100606175043.GA46089@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <20100606163136.GA27788@guilt.hydra> References: <AANLkTinG745GjOaZKLT1TfKgqVi6VHt9-ciHWQUY57VT@mail.gmail.com> <20100605231715.GD69990@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <20100606163136.GA27788@guilt.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 06 2010 10:31, Chad Perrin wrote: > 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. > > Do you use that as your interactive shell, for scripting, or both? > Interactive only. For scripting, I stick to sh unless it gets too complex -- then I jump to Ruby. > > > > > man zsh to see that there are so many features they had to break up the > > man pages. > > That's kind of scary. True, and it shows in its initial virtual size: sterling 62630 0.0 0.0 8264 1804 0 I 10:42AM 0:00.00 sh sterling 62733 0.0 0.1 10284 2932 0 I 10:42AM 0:00.01 csh sterling 62791 0.0 0.1 10284 2848 0 I 10:43AM 0:00.01 tcsh sterling 70731 0.0 0.1 14580 4324 0 I 10:46AM 0:00.05 zsh sterling 71773 0.0 0.1 10220 2908 0 I+ 10:46AM 0:00.01 bash But on a laptop with 4GB, I don't miss it. -- Sterling (Chip) Camden | camdensoftware.com | chipstips.com | chipsquips.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100606175043.GA46089>