nostr:npub1g3jc6pasekkv39ks9f5rul670yha63lr69xtgtz20ptghuc7kvlq7hk5cu nostr:npub1dme5v398xnrf4p4xmwr3tqfnl3autg49tt2k7s3q7hf40sjtzzfs49ch6s Computing is not my job. It hasn't been my job for over two decades. Time spent learning a new shell or thinking about computers is time *wasted* from the non-compsci point of view.

Thing is, the question about the utility of switching to a new shell has embedded ideological assumptions that implicitly privilege computing over applications. To 99% of the world applications of computing are the priority; the machines and software are just an annoying drag on getting stuff done.

nostr:npub1dme5v398xnrf4p4xmwr3tqfnl3autg49tt2k7s3q7hf40sjtzzfs49ch6s nostr:npub1g3jc6pasekkv39ks9f5rul670yha63lr69xtgtz20ptghuc7kvlq7hk5cu Question: "can the state of shells be improved enough to overcome the inertia of sticking to what you know?"

This is the wrong question. It presupposes zero cost of transition, while the cognitive workload of learning a new shell rises exponentially with age (hint: I'm nearly 60, shells are harder to adapt to than a new GUI). Stability and continuity are essential prerequisites to productivity!