Re: Emacs Environment Variables

[Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null>]

jadamson@partners.org (Joel J. Adamson) writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:
>>
>>> Am 27.11.2007 um 09:03 schrieb Tim X:
>>>
>>>> I don't want to have to know two shells, one for interactive work and
>>>> one for scripting.
>>>
>>> So you're boiling your eggs with a hammer?
>>>
>>> For me it's not that complicated to write in German, English,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Your English writing could make do with fewer non-sequiturs.
>
> One shell might be better for scripting and one for interactive use.
>
> I switched to Z Shell because of its interactive features (it's "more
> pretty"), and started scripting at the same time; now that I use Dired,
> I have very limited interactive shell usage, but I still use zsh for
> scripting.  Of course I use bash for any system-wide scripts or things
> meant to run as root.

I used zsh some years back, mainly because at the time, it was thought it
would be the best shell for parallel processing environments and because
the researcher I was working with in parallel processing was also actively
contributing to its development. Its been a long time since I used it, but
back then, it was definitely one of the nicest interactive shell
environments and it had good consistency between interactive and
non-interactive (scripting) use (unlike csh).

I've thought about going back to it, but I just don't use interactive
shells that much (dired and eshell more often than not) and I've been
enjoying moving my environment to a more lisp like one, using rep, guile,
scsh and lush instead. 

Still, zsh is a shell I remember as being pleasant to use and unless the
project has gone in some weird new direction, its probably still a good
shell. Of course, I still use (ba)sh for my system scripts as I know it
will exist.

Tim


-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au