On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Ben Woolley <tauto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We now have very good automation tools that are not shells, like Python and > Lua, so wouldn't it make sense to take a second look at shells that are more > specific to command interpretation? >
This looks fun to talk about. I think any minimal shell aims for simple command interpretation, rather than support complex syntax and features majority wouldn't really use. One time I was looking into shells that let the user use general purpose languages (see: piper (python), temple os (its C interpreter shell)), rather than shell script. I found those shells to be both very expressive, easy to use, and extensible, because you can just define another function, or import another library during runtime. Some might say "but it's much more verbose". Well maybe the defaults are, but you can create a new wrapper library that are single letter functions. I personally don't use those shells because they aren't widely used. I need to keep myself familiarized with the hell that is bash, and we know it isn't easy. We all have a list of what makes shells powerful to us. Piping, redirection, execution, history, verbosity, simplicity, bloat and so on. Use the tool that you like the most! Life is too short to worry about "too many features" - it's easier to remove them anyways.
