FWIW, I still use bash as well. Nothing against zsh per-se, it's just that I know bash, bash works, and there's no particular pain I experience using bash that will obviously be solved by switching. And when you factor in anticipated switching costs, I haven't found any compelling reason to spend any significant time on zsh so far.

Maybe one day though.

Yes, I'll throw my hat into this group too. Bash is fine.

YMMV but I have found using zsh too frictitious to be helpful. Sure, theoretically zsh living in a bash world (lets face it, all scripts are bash) is completely fine but reality seems to differ. Copied a one liner from shell history into your script? Crash. Use arrays? Weird bugs. Use shell builtins? Whoa unexpected interactivity!!! Etc...

Bash is absolutely fine as a default shell. As an added benefit, you don't feel like an invalid once logged in to a container or server.

I've been using it for the last 6 or 7 years and I can only remember one specific feature I use a lot: "unset HISTFILE" to disable history when I need to run commands with passwords.

Other than that, oh-my-zsh with git, systemd, and fzf plugins. Saves a lot of typing.

The main selling point for me is how easy it is to setup.

I don't think it is crazy, but I know and love the bash quirks. I've got permanent history setup thanks to Eli Bandersky [1] which I know zsh has a solution to already. But what annoys me with zsh is some of the ways it tab completes when navigating the filesystem, and not by default allowing comments on the command line, e.g. '# github api key blahblahblah', which I can then pull later using phgrep.

Slight pain on a mac to get the latest version and use it as terminal shell, but it gets easier everytime I work on a fresh mac.

[1]: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2013/06/11/keeping-persistent-...

If you want vi history editing like you are used to in bash for the last 20 years it's subtly different in a manner that makes it insanity inducing. If you use the traditional emacs like editing it's much the same.