🚀 go-pugleaf

Tony J Yeates writes
> cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
> > And most of all why would anyone bother ? To see how much
> > effort, talent and   good ideas have gone into tcsh is
> > almost heart-rending. I've previously   publicly asked
> > for any good reason to continue to use csh descended
> > shells   instead of eg. zsh and been met only with
> > resounding silence. 
> 
> tcsh has an excellent use interface (i.e. command line
> editing), incorporating the best features of ksh, csh
> and 4DOS IMHO. Its also backward compatible with tcsh (a
> painless transition).

That is the biggest problem of tcsh - it is compatible with csh which means  
that it has almost all the csh brain damage.

> I've never used zsh, and haven't heard any rave-reviews

Well, then you haven't been reading this newsgroup very long, I take it ? :-)

> ... is this something special or just another free shell?
> Whats the associated programming language like?  (If its
> not Bourne Shell, ksh, REXX, perl or csh compatible -
> forget it, there are too many shell language
> alternatives already!)

Combines the best of all imaginable worlds by having almost all the interactive  
features of tcsh (only the most fancy custom command line completion stuff  
introduced in the most recent tcsh is not in zsh yet) in addition to many  
useful ones of its own. But it is based on sh/ksh, not csh which means that it  
is can also be used for programming tasks.

	Carl Edman