I use scsh every day, not interactively but the scripts that implement my workflow are written in scsh. I don't change them all that often but when have to tweak something or add a command it's an absolute delight. Imagine -- a shell language with decent power of abstraction.

Here's the main script I use, as an example of practial scsh (I don't know if it would be considered idiomatic): https://github.com/plesner/scsh/blob/master/ash

I tried this years ago. I can't really remember much about it other that it's a great idea, but in reality made it hard to do things that should have been easy.

From http://scsh.net/docu/html/man-Z-H-2.html#node_sec_1.4

It is not a very comfortable system for interactive command use: the current release lacks job control, command-line editing, a terse, convenient command syntax

One thing it's missing, which would probably make it much easier to use, is parenthesis completion.

I was using it non-interactively.

your editor should do that not your language.

Not if you're using it for interactive use, which is what I think the GP is talking about.

Why not have an integrated editor (which most term emulators have to some extent). Or extend (via a plugin?) the terminal to support the needed operations.

Or use a completely different style of terminal, that is more akin to an emacs buffer.

Can you try to remember what those things were? I am working on a project that includes something similar (not nearly as evolved) and would be curious as to what to look out for.

Vague memories of not being able to extract matching groups after executing a regexp. Things like that were annoying.

When I saw this my first thought was to wonder whether it would be better to use this than to use Racket for systems/shell programming? The Racket documentation has a complete tutorial on using Racket for systems programming.

Can anyone who has used both comment on their relative merits?

P.S. Best Acknowledgements Page. EVER!

Does anyone have access to the companion paper? The link[1] is broken.

1. http://scsh.net/docu/scsh-paper/scsh-paper.html

Found a working link: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=961...

This is popping up regularly on HN...

The acknowledgements are well worth the read...

I may be dense, but I never found them funny or even interesting. Anyone care to explain?[+]

[+] Or will y'all go Louis Armstrong on me? (https://quotabl.es/quotes/20237)

If you don't find it funny initially, then it is very unlikely that you will find it funny after it's been explained.

Nevertheless, I find it humorous because it is very unexpected, quite extreme, and seems to prove itself in a way (one of the ideas that it presents is that his coworkers don't give a shit about what he is doing. That he was able to get away with putting this into his acknowledgements seems to suggest there is some truth in that (of course, realistically, he wasn't going to be fired for it)).

Kind of a combination of surrealist humor and shock humor. Today this sort of humor may seem a bit tired, but keep in mind that this was published a few years before Fight Club.

"Jack 'n Zac" always kills me too. Such a great name for such an improbable drink.

I guess it's not my kind of humour, but at least I understand it better now. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

0_o This might be amazing, but I think I'll stick with zsh or really any other shell where the author doesn't threaten murderous rampage ☠ ☠ ☠ ☠ ☠

It's very unlikely that you'd be a target in any such rampage... unless you keep complaining like this.