From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A144138D0E for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:18:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D52EA14033; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:18:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5A914010 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:18:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDRdb-0003h2-DI for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:18:19 +0200 Received: from lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.42.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:18:19 +0200 Received: from martin by lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:18:19 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone else having a problem with bash? Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20150706100117.0d993a04@a6> <559E5D43.2070800@gmail.com> <20150709124824.10f75958@hactar.digimed.co.uk> <559e62cc.a673980a.c356c.657e@mx.google.com> <20150709170743.4d4ef6be@hactar.digimed.co.uk> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-26 (Linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 9511f0f2-e8ef-4300-a481-f5be2b9c3db2 X-Archives-Hash: ed9ea7d97a3d34ef8d4b16621d510e75 Neil Bothwick wrote: > As a > scripting language, Bash is probably better This is not true, either: Although finally bash took some of the features of zsh (arrays, regular expression matching, etc.) there are still many features missing in bash (extended globbing, many variable and array operations etc.) > although if I need that > much functionality in a script I would use Python instead of any shell > variant. That's the mqin reason - together with the fact that bash is more widespread - why zsh is not used as much as it deserves: When you write a complex program you should probably use a high-level language to start with unless there are very good reasons why you can't (e.g. longer startup time etc.) (I would prefer perl over python as it appears to me to be similar with zsh vs. bash concerning features, although in the perl-python case it is not so clear since the languages have also some "philosophical" differences: For large projects it may be an *advantage* to have less language features, so that they are not misused by badly skilled team members...)