On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:21 AM, David Benfell <benfell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> 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...)
