> You can do a lot of advanced things with bash, and customize it to do even more, but ZSH allows you to do even more.
Bash can do a lot of things zsh can’t, and vice versa.
> Fish is a nice shell (probably nicer than ZSH), but realistically it was not a real consideration due to the fact that it is not POSIX compatible.
Neither is zsh, really. There’s emulation modes but I never got the impression that fidelity was a goal there.
Also what can bash do that zsh can’t? Genuinely curious, after using both for years.
I have noticed that a lot of the features listed in https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html#Major-Dif... aren't present in zsh, but I am not sure of all the ones that aren't in zsh.
Ones that I have used in bash that aren't in zsh (there may be many more, I stopped using zsh in many scenarios because of some of these):
* Some of https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html#Shell-Par... (e.g at least ${LOGNAME^^}, `(FOO=BAR;echo ${FOO,,})`)
* -p option to read for the prompt, e.g. `read -s -p "Enter the DB password: " PW`
"Zsh is able to emulate POSIX shells, but its default mode is not POSIX compatible, either."
from http://zsh.sourceforge.net/Doc/Release/index.html
> You can do a lot of advanced things with bash, and customize it to do even more, but ZSH allows you to do even more.
Bash can do a lot of things zsh can’t, and vice versa.
> Fish is a nice shell (probably nicer than ZSH), but realistically it was not a real consideration due to the fact that it is not POSIX compatible.
Neither is zsh, really. There’s emulation modes but I never got the impression that fidelity was a goal there.