Comparison of Unix shells

Of the major Unix shells (bash, ksh, tcsh, zsh, others?), are there any compelling reasons to use one over another?

• Which is the most interactive/command-line friendly?
• Which is the most conducive/intuitive for writing scripts?
• Are there any major built-in features that one shell offers that others don't?
• Are any of these shells really good for one type of function, but not another? Or are they all pretty well-rounded/flexible?
• Is it just a matter of personal preference?

I can make this community wiki if anyone prefers.

Solution 1:

Current:

• bash — Bourne again shell, default shell in most Linux distributions. Decent features;
• zsh — the most feature rich, but still rarely used;
• ksh — default shell in Solaris, AIX and other few other unices;
• tcsh — default shell in various *BSD flavor unices;

Historic:

• sh — original Bourne shell (released 1977). Obsoleted by bash;
• csh — original C shell (released 1978). Obsoleted by tcsh and ksh;

Note, that bash, ksh and zsh derive from sh syntax, while tcsh derives from csh syntax. This are two quite different syntaxes.

The feature chart (wiki).

Solution 2:

fish is a new shell that is perhaps more interesting than the others, not because it necessarily has more features, but because they Just Work by default and because fish strives for usability.

A few screenshots (1, 2, 3, 4) are enough to give the general idea.

fish is now the default shell on my Mac at work. Go figure.

Solution 3:

If you're going to learn a shell other than sh/bash, you might as well just go with zsh. I don't think anyone seriously contests that it's the most powerful and feature-packed of the alternative shells; whether it's just bloat is, of course, still up for debate.

I've heard good things about fish, but never worked up the effort to bother with them.

The admins I know consider csh and tcsh to be abominations that should be avoided at all costs, and I agree with them despite never having been forced to put myself through either shell.