> Sure, although, you know, my team – we all have deep UNIX backgrounds, before getting into NT, I was a UNIX development manager at Digital [Equipment Corporation], … worked on Ultrix, System 5.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3110744/linuxcon-qa-wit...

oh wow, I had no idea

thanks for the link

I don't think I want to compare them - I dislike them both! One is too basic and cryptic, the other one is overly complex for a shell, and in the end, I want to use neither.

I'm not sure what the ideal shell would look like though. Maybe an actual (simple and expressive) programming language with a way to 'lift' statements ?

oh my bad then, and the quest for an ideal shell / text user interface is a nice one. between lispy repls, to notebooks .. I guess there's a better solution that is both concise and fun yet not brittle.

The situation gets worse every year with multitude new commanline utilities and scripts being created as part of new frameworks, languages and tools. And then everything gets mixed together to form some unstable, ever changing, inconsistent programming language.

sed/grep/awk have nothing to do with bash tho and you can run them equally easy on Windows (cinst sed grep awk) if you like outdated reg ex.

yes they're not bash but they're an integral part of bash scripts pipe processing

They are "integral" only because shell is lacking those functions.

On some places tools are not there (docker image for example).

Some people complain about size of the dotNet runtime, but if you install all those tools bash "needs" for comfy usage, you can equally easy install dotNet.

I don't think that's right. unix users care a lot about streams of bytes as exchange format, powershell tried the object stream way, to avoid parsing manually stuff every time and also share some common bits (table formatting for free, map/filter for free too)

unix give you partial stuff for that like comm but it's just brittle