zsh vs bash

[Richard Sharman <rsharman@magmacom.com>]

Thought writes:
 > Hey, what do you guys think is better, zsh or bash?
 > 

I prefer zsh,  I find it easier to work with.   For a while it had
several features missing from bash (and most shells),  but bash has
caught up on many of them.   It still has some features which don't
seem to be in bash (though perhaps it's just a matter of finding out
how to setup bash):

* ability to line edit a multi-line command.  I find this very
  useful.  Say you've just typed in a multi-line "for"..."done" line
  and need to fix a type or redo it slightly differently.   Under zsh
  you simply using ^p like any single line.
* the "vared" builtin -- allows you to line edit a variable
  (e.g.  "vared path").
* allows you to defined what a "word" is (e.g. for using
  backward-word).   Using the vared command makes it nice and simple, 
  just do "vared WORDCHARS".
* accepts both csh and sh syntax,  which is useful if you're used to a
  tcsh environment at work,  or just like some of the csh things like 
  "prompt" instead of "PS1",  or using a wordlist $path rather than a
  colon-separated $PATH.
* ability to try out an interactive command with "M-x" without having
  to specifically bind it.
* the "infer next" command.   (Hmmm,  this seems to be broken now;
  it used to work and was very nice.)   (Bash now has something limilar,
  operate-and-get-next (C-o).  I like zsh's approach where you use this
  command when you want the next command;  bash requires you to think
  ahead and realize before submitting that you will want the next command.)
* automatic completion on variables names,  e.g. type
 "export DISP" and hit tab.  (I just checked,  in bash you can use
  Esc-$ to specifically complete a variable name;  in zsh the default
  compctl (completion) has been setup to complete for a variable name
  if the command is "export".   While the zsh seemed easier,  I guess
  the bash approach allows you to control it more.)

However,  bash has some advantages:

* better built-in help (zsh has some if you set it up as suggested,
  but bash seems better and works out-of-the-box)
* Ability to interactively define keyboard macros (similar to within
  emacs)
* Bash uses the GNU readline which can be used from any C-program.

Actually,  I think the last point is probably a very important one.
Both shell's line editing is good,  but bash's readline can be included
in any C program.   By putting your preferences in your ~/.inputrc file
you can thus customize many programs in one fell swoop.

In any case,  I would say try them both,  and then pick one and read the
manual or info and get familiar with it.  And every so often read it
again to pick some more hints.

There are 2 programs that really pay off putting a bit of effort into
learning: the shell you use and the editor you use.   Picking a "simple
and easy to use" editor is a short sighted approach.  Pick a powerful
editor and invest some time in learning it.   (You don't have to learn
it all,  and you don't have to learn all that much at first, either.)
It will really pack off.   And I think the same philosophy applies,
perhaps to a lesser degree,  to the shell you use.

Richard