> the only other 'standard' shell scripts can rely on is POSIX/Bourne
Have you seen POSIX? Have you read Bourne shell documentation? I haven't. The former is expensive, the latter is not that easy to get.
I have read Single UNIX Specification, though, which is available on-line.
> But sadly most of the features that zsh/bash copied or invented themselves concern the UI, not programming capabilities.
Shell is not intended for regular programming. It's intended for small automation scripts. If you need to write anything bigger, choosing shell over Perl, Python or Ruby is a fundamentally bad idea. BTDTGTT.
And do you know how much of SUS-guaranteed shell syntax you use, anyway? Do you know what is a bashism and what is in the specification, so you can claim SUS-compliant shell has too weak language?
> Have you seen POSIX? Have you read Bourne shell documentation? I haven't. The former is expensive, the latter is not that easy to get. I have read Single UNIX Specification, though, which is available on-line.
What is the distinction you are trying to make?
Single UNIX® Specification, Version 4, 2013 Edition
Technically identical to IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition and ISO/IEC 9945:2009 including ISO/IEC 9945:2009/Cor 1:2013(E), with the addition of X/Open Curses.
Have you seen POSIX? Have you read Bourne shell documentation? I haven't. The former is expensive, the latter is not that easy to get. I have read Single UNIX Specification, though, which is available on-line.
> But sadly most of the features that zsh/bash copied or invented themselves concern the UI, not programming capabilities.
Shell is not intended for regular programming. It's intended for small automation scripts. If you need to write anything bigger, choosing shell over Perl, Python or Ruby is a fundamentally bad idea. BTDTGTT.
And do you know how much of SUS-guaranteed shell syntax you use, anyway? Do you know what is a bashism and what is in the specification, so you can claim SUS-compliant shell has too weak language?