Which shell is best for programmers?
bash for tool compatibility.
>2016
>Using shell
>Not wiring the connections manually on the machine to execute programs
>>55388332
fish
sh
>Calling yourself a programmer and using an algol descendant
>Using anything but es or scsh
>>55388332
Powershell
bats
Holyc shell
>>55388332
Why would anyone in their right mind even use bash? It's a piece of fucking garbage and its syntax feels like it was devised by a mentally challenged schizophrenic.
>>55388332
Any shell wich is POSIX compatible.
>>55388431
This is not.
>>55388986
Newfag.
>>55388332
Jokes aside, GNU Bash
>>55388332
Bash, but try to avoid bashisms as much as possible.
>>55388986
You probably are a webmaster, aren't you?
I want to learn how to use shell (first time ever using it), which one should I try and pick up?
I use zsh normally, but script for bash because it's the most portable.
Avoid shell for anything complex.
Instead use python.
Else, bash will run on most Linux.
>>55388986
bash has several advantages.
It is the default on most gnu/linux systems, so when it works on your system, it should not be a problem to get it to work on other systems.
It has many features.
One reason I see people switch to something else is because they didn't bother to look through the massive amount of settings you can change in bash.
It can often solve the problem you were having.
The syntax is weird at first, but you quickly learn how to write stuff for bash.
>>55389289
Bash, with associative arrays and all the trimmings. People need to stop kidding themselves about bashisms - any sufficiently complex script is either going to use GNU coreutils, the majority of which aren't portable, or be better written in something else.
>>55389389
>Else, bash will run on most Linux.
Bash runs on pretty much everything, it just isn't shipped by default with them.
only programmers like karlie kloss use zsh
>>55388332
For scripts, you should use sh for performance and portability, and maybe bash if you're 100% sure you're only going to be using machines with bash.
For interactive shells, on your machines you should use whichever shell is the most powerful, which in practice means fish or zsh. On servers use whatever is available (zsh, bash or sh most likely. Sometimes tcsh if your sysadmin is a heretic).
>>55389467
>People need to stop kidding themselves about bashisms
Fir instance arrays are not supoorted by sh, it's pretty common to use them in bash scripts. There is a package embedding a tool called checkbashisms or stgh like that. I discovered thay we had more than we tought. Most of them were easily modified though.
>>55389467
>any sufficiently complex script is either going to use GNU coreutils
Why? GNU mostly provides convenience (e.g., cal -3 or sed -i) for interactive use, the rest of the functionality is POSIX standard. Ignoring the fact you shouldn't be writing complex scripts in shell, POSIX utilities alone are powerful enough for any reasonable scripting needs.
I prefer (t)csh.
Bash and sh are good too. Not sure about ksh since I never used it and zsh is literal meme tier for arch babies who like to rice their shell for uploading dotfiles to github.
>>55389833
csh is cancer and zsh is top tier, though bash/ksh are fine too
>>55388332
anyone having used rc from plan 9? opinions?
>>55388332
sh and its the most likely to be compatible with everything else except csh
>>55389993
rc is just sh with funky syntax. It's completely unremarkable without the entire plan 9 infrastructure supporting it.
>Bash runs on pretty much everything, it just isn't shipped by default with them.
>let's force people to use my software
fuck off nigger
>>55390272
meant for >>55389467
>>55388332
zsh, easily
