scopatz

Hi Mike, a lot of us hangout on gitter: https://gitter.im/xonsh/xonsh

More taglines are always welcome!

FWIW (as the original author of xonsh), xonsh does have a strict separation of Python and subprocess syntax. Users can always choose to write in fully formal xonsh, it is just that most users choose to use the default convenience mechanisms that xonsh provides.

If you let us know about the package, we can work with you to create a variant.

Sure, but aliases is a real mapping object that you can access and manipulate

It means that it is not fully sh-lang compatible (i.e. a true unix shell), but is as compatible as reasonably achievable while maintaining full compatibility with Python 3.

Python variables are scoped as normal, so the security story for xonsh is the same as for Python. We are always open to suggestions and PRs to harden the code base as needed.

Can you please open an issue detailing the problem? https://github.com/xonsh/xonsh/issues I'd love to help make this work. I believe that the emacs folks have something that works for them

We have a couple of dozen very handy plugins available already (powerline, conda support, etc) and are always looking for more!

Hi StreakyCobra, Anthony Scopatz here (one of the lead developers of xonsh). I'd like to say that I hope that xonsh is the solution for you and if there are tools or features that you need or would like to see, please always feel free to bring them up on our issue tracker [1] or gitter [2]. Pull requests are also always welcome.

Now as per the post about not being a zsh replacement that you mention, I'd like to give my perspective. That post was authored by an individual who had put in few pull requests [3,4] where he was attempting to:

1. Move the xonsh code base from PEP8 to Google Python Style Guide 2. Instist that the map() and filter() Python builtins were deprecated (they aren't) and that they shouldn't be used.

After getting feedback from us about how these and other style changes didn't conform to existing norms in the code base, he simply closed the PRs and then wrote that blog post. I am disappointed that this unnecessary attack on the xonsh project and me personally has created uncertainty around the project.

We really are trying to build a better shell for everyone. Everyone is invited and welcome to participate in that process. We strive to have an kind development and user community. It should be a pleasure not just to use xonsh, but also contribute to its creation.

Again if there are specific things, that you'd like to see, please let us know!

[1] https://github.com/xonsh/xonsh/issues [2] https://gitter.im/xonsh/xonsh [3] https://github.com/xonsh/xonsh/pull/508 [4] https://github.com/xonsh/xonsh/pull/512

Sorry to hear you ran into problems. Start up time is pretty fast for me (~0.1-0.2 s). If it is slower than a second, I am very concerned. Please open an issue (with the results of the xonfig) so we can work through what is going wrong. Your workflow sounds similar to mine.

As per the pulldown terminals, do you mean the dropdown menus? If so this can be avoided by using the readline shell instead of the prompt-toolkit one.

Totally agree that the comparison table is flattering. The purpose of the front page for a project is to make it look good. This is one of the few places a project has that opportunity. Happy to update it if you notice any thing wrong or would like to see additional rows or columns.