I can't seem to get myself to like zsh more than bash. I eish there was a bashifier profile script. Small annoyances. A small example would be '!' To execute the last matching command, I use that all the time but zsh requires an extra enter to get it to actually run. I use it when it is a default, sometimes I use bash when it annoys too much and I would not pick it on purpose. I just don't get what is so much better about it.

Autocompletion is one thing zsh does better, and that alone is worth it IMO. It can autocomplete things other than filenames and even gives you a short description for each of the subcommands or CLI options in the completion candidates. For the most common commands, this works without even having to install third party completion scripts. Bash, in comparison, has limited completion. Most of the time, it only completes filenames even after installing third party completion scripts. It's a major source of frustration when I find myself in a bash shell.

Syntax highlighting is useful as well, though that requires the use of a third party plugin. You can detect quoting errors, unmatched braces, missing commands, incorrect filepaths before hitting enter. It's indispensable in an interactive shell because that's where you write convoluted one-off one-liners.

ZLE, the zsh equivalent of readline, is also a major selling point. It allows you to create your own keybinding widget, a shell function bound to a key that can manipulate the current command line buffer. It's what enables the syntax highlighting plugin. With readline, you can only assign predefined functions.

In general, zsh is extensible and offers more capabilities than bash. But to feel the difference, you need to configure it and enable the nice features.

> Autocompletion is one thing zsh does better, and that alone is worth it IMO. It can autocomplete things other than filenames and even gives you a short description for each of the subcommands or CLI options in the completion candidates. For the most common commands, this works without even having to install third party completion scripts.

The joke here is: All this requires additional scripts / configs. Whether bundled or not…

With those scripts / config there is no difference between shells.

> Syntax highlighting is useful as well, though that requires the use of a third party plugin. You can detect quoting errors, unmatched braces, missing commands, incorrect filepaths before hitting enter. It's indispensable in an interactive shell because that's where you write convoluted one-off one-liners.

https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh

> In general, zsh is extensible and offers more capabilities than bash.

Nobody ever could show me even one feature that isn't available in almost all popular shells!

> But to feel the difference, you need to configure it and enable the nice features.

Yeah sure. When you tune your ̵c̵a̵r̵ shell it has nice features afterwards…

That's true for any shell as I see it.

---

I for my part don't like Unix shell. Even after 20 years of usage (as since then Linux is my only OS).

Also I've never understood what's the case about zsh. Nobody could ever answer the question why it's anyhow "better" or even show features not available elsewhere.

I came to the conclusion that zsh is just a stupid hype of "cool kids". It's the same as with the car tuning crowd.

A truly better shell would be much different than a Unix shell. There are some experiments out there but nothing really convincing.

So I continue to stay with the not so cool default. As it's most compatible and available everywhere.

But please wake me up when there is some real innovation regarding shells!

You mean a single line.

    autoload -Uz compinit; compinit

As I wrote in my original comment, bash only does filepath completion most of the time even with third party completion scripts. And I have never seen bash completion provide descriptions alongside subcommands or CLI options.

> https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh

ble.sh is impressive work, but it's a hack that won't be as reliable or compatible without built-in support for programmatic manipulation of the command line buffer in bash. ble.sh works around bash limitations by diverting key input from readline and reimplementing its features. It contains workarounds for specific terminals, and scripts have to be modified to accommodate ble.sh. IIRC FZF's shell integration required modifications to work with ble.sh.

> Nobody ever could show me even one feature that isn't available in almost all popular shells!

Read the parts of my original comment which you haven't quoted.

> When you tune your ̵c̵a̵r̵ shell it has nice features afterwards…

Only to the extent that the shell lets you. Also, having features bundled in the default installation helps tremendously even if it's not enabled by default.

> I came to the conclusion that zsh is just a stupid hype of "cool kids". It's the same as with the car tuning crowd.

That was uncalled for. If you don't want to use zsh, that fine but don't assume things and throw insults at those who do.

> But please wake me up when there is some real innovation regarding shells!

The original comment was about how zsh compares to bash, not a critique of the unix shell.