From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-users-return-5324-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.dk>
Received: (qmail 7193 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2002 20:46:51 -0000
Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 31 Aug 2002 20:46:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 29890 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2002 20:46:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 5324
Received: (qmail 29878 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2002 20:46:32 -0000
From: "Joshua Symons" <vmcore@mysun.com>
To: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Cc: Arthur Alinovi <aalinovi@panix.com>, zsh-users@sunsite.dk
Message-ID: <1c3d61cf3e.1cf3e1c3d6@mysun.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:42:22 -0500
X-Mailer: Netscape Webmail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en
Subject: Re: Why zsh?
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

also good reading, posted this link (copy of original) because faqs.org
is down.
http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/unix-faq.shell.shell-differences/msg00000.html

- Josh -

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Date: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:06 am
Subject: Re: Why zsh?

> 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 
> ideaby now.
> 
> > "zsh is better that tcsh, because..."
> 
> ... no one has yet had any reason to write a document entitled "Zsh
> Programming Considered Harmful."
> 
>    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
> 
> ----------
> [%] I quote from <:" 
> target="l">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 
> Enterpriseshttp://www.well.com/user/barts              
> http://www.brasslantern.com
> Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: 
> http://phperl.sourceforge.net   
>