From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from ncar.UCAR.EDU ([128.117.64.4]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2733>; Sat, 24 Jul 1993 22:37:09 -0400
Received: from niwot.scd.ucar.edu by ncar.ucar.EDU (5.65/ NCAR Central Post Office 03/11/93)
	id AA23674; Sat, 24 Jul 93 20:37:01 MDT
From:	djc@niwot.scd.ucar.EDU (Dennis Colarelli)
Message-Id: <9307250236.AA20501@niwot.scd.ucar.EDU>
Received: by niwot.scd.ucar.EDU (5.65/ NCAR Mail Server 04/10/90)
	id AA20501; Sat, 24 Jul 93 20:36:59 MDT
Subject: Re: rc FAQ list
To:	alan@oldp.astro.wisc.edu (Alan Watson)
Date:	Sat, 24 Jul 1993 22:36:59 -0400
Cc:	rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu
In-Reply-To: <9307250044.AA21203@oldp.astro.wisc.edu>; from "Alan Watson" at Jul 24, 93 8:44 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

> Alan.
> 
> P.S. I had a look at the zsh FAQ whilst I was revising -- the features
> just blew my mind, but nothing prepared me for the final line of the
> acknowledgements.  Is it just me, or do these people really have their
> own version of reality?
> 

My experience on design is that:
   1. It's easy to make things complicated
   2. It's difficult to make things easy
Trying to be as objective as possible, I find zsh more like (1)
and rc like (2) (i.e., the design of rc requires less cognative
dissonance during application than zsh).  What's really wierd in
this analysis is how zealous people are about their favorite shell.

Dennis
rc uber allis