Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Why zsh?
- X-seq: zsh-users 5323
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Arthur Alinovi <aalinovi@xxxxxxxxx>, zsh-users@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Why zsh?
- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:06:48 +0000
- In-reply-to: <200208310543.g7V5hZe23399@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-users-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <200208310543.g7V5hZe23399@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Aug 31, 1:43am, Arthur Alinovi wrote:
} So far, I'm very impressed by what I see. However, a friend of mine
} (who is a bit of a unix wizard) uses tcsh and is curious as to what
} zsh can do that tcsh couldn't do if he wrote a 500 line .cshrc file
* Execute standard /bin/sh scripts.
* Handle ANY signal, not just INT and HUP.
* Redirect stderr without redirecting stdout as well.
* Parse real semantic control structures (loops, functions, etc.) rather
than syntactic sugar that sort of looks like a control structure. [%]
And those are just the features common to any Bourne-like shell, such as
bash or ksh as well as zsh. How about:
* Do real multi-line editing of arbitrary text (not just command lines).
* Do floating point arithmetic. (Ok, so you need zsh 4.x for that one.)
* Save that 500 line startup file in byte-compiled form so it doesn't
need to be parsed again the next time. (Yeah, that's 4.x as well.)
I could go on, but there's no way to explain things like multios and
process substitutions in two lines of text, and you should have the idea
> "zsh is better that tcsh, because..."
... no one has yet had any reason to write a document entitled "Zsh
Programming Considered Harmful."
[%] I quote from <http://www.tcsh.org/tcsh.html/Control_flow.html>:
"If the shell's input is not seekable, the shell buffers up input
whenever a loop is being read and performs seeks in this internal
buffer to accomplish the rereading implied by the loop."
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net
Messages sorted by: