Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:32:58 -0700 From: Chip Camden <sterling@camdensoftware.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which is the basic differences between the shells? Message-ID: <20100606183258.GC46089@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> 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
On Jun 06 2010 12:21, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > > 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. > > 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 was a tcsh user before switching to zsh. But I was raised on the Bourne Shell, and used Korn shell a lot in the 90s. The C-shell versions of control flow commands always tripped me up, even though they're arguably more sane -- just because the sh versions flow off the fingertips. So sh-compatibility was my main reason, but I like the features of csh that zsh cherry-picked. -- 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?20100606183258.GC46089>