Well okay, I can see some of the points the guy is making, tho the bit about static binary size seems slightly silly as they're all tiny compared to something like a windowing system.
Add to which you're discounting many of the niceties that make bash so compelling that it's worn grooves in my nerve pathways. emacs like editing (yes, I know you can have that in zsh) autocompletion like i'm used to, etc. let's put this one down to freedom of religion OK ;-) http://www.efn.org/~laprice ( Community, Cooperation, Consensus http://www.opn.org ( Openness to serendipity, make mistakes http://www.efn.org/~laprice/poems ( but learn from them.(carpe fructus ludi) http://allie.office.efn.org/phpwiki/index.php?OregonPublicNetworking On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Jacob Meuser wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 07:00:23PM -0800, larry a price wrote: > > Why zsh? > > It seems to me that if i need that level of programmability > > I'd be better off starting python and importing sys,os and whatever else > > I needed for the task at hand. > > or add some kbd-macros to my .emacs > > > > Of course freedom of choice is one of the great things about free software > > > > Exactly, so why use bash? > > http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archive/openbsd-misc/200104/msg01452.html > > -- > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
