No, I made the claim that people who think shells and "real (sic) programming languages" are distinct categories, and can't be otherwise, and use it support the idea that current shells are fine, are the reason for bad shells.
>sure it is possible to have both, but the focus of the shell needs to be on interactivity
As if those are contradictory goals?
A shell can have a much much better real programming language AND BE interactive.
>i don't at all care if the shell has a good programming language. i only care about good interactive features.
Hence my false dichotomy complaint.
As if those are contradictory goals?
not as if they are contradictory, but as in what is more important.
nushell appears miss a few features that are important for interactive use. but for a shell to be useful its interactive features are just as, if not more important.
there is a lot of overlap though, as a good interactive shell does benefit from a better language syntax and from things like types, arrays, etc.