I've been a professional C, Perl, PHP and Python developer.
I'm an ex-sysadmin from the late 20th century.
These days I do more Javascript and CSS and whatnot, and promote UX and accessibility.
Partly for the same reason as the other Bens here, because it's ubiquitous.
But I dislike when people evangelise other shells for spurious reasons. Things like oh-my-zsh are 99% bloat, and people go on about how great they are, when you can do everything they do with bash anyway. Zsh has some really annoying history and completion as far as I'm concerned, like if you hit up-arrow too soon before returning to the prompt it thinks you're trying to history-complete whatever was your last command.
I also resent that since the move to Zsh by MacOS, users are saying how great it is - well it's great because you've been stuck on a really old version of bash on your computer because your provider, Apple, doesn't like free software. This isn't a reason to use Zsh, it's a reason to not use MacOS. I think most of the arguments in favour of Zsh get this the wrong way around.
Then there're ash and dash. I have no particular opinion of them but think they're OK.
I've tried fish. I don't particularly like it. Nothing I can put my finger on, just feels like a whole lot of pointless features and colours that don't really help me, and a slew of things that aren't quite compatible enough.
I think MUDsh is hilarious but also hilariously unusable. I totally recommend giving it a go.
Everything else, your Cees and Kays and TeeCees and their kin, are older than power suits and shoulder pads and they feel like it.
I'm quite a heavy scripter, even though - like most users I suspect - I don't use at least 50% of the features of the shell anyway. Bash is enough, and it's reliably enough.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Bash.
Partly for the same reason as the other Bens here, because it's ubiquitous.
But I dislike when people evangelise other shells for spurious reasons. Things like oh-my-zsh are 99% bloat, and people go on about how great they are, when you can do everything they do with bash anyway. Zsh has some really annoying history and completion as far as I'm concerned, like if you hit up-arrow too soon before returning to the prompt it thinks you're trying to history-complete whatever was your last command.
I also resent that since the move to Zsh by MacOS, users are saying how great it is - well it's great because you've been stuck on a really old version of bash on your computer because your provider, Apple, doesn't like free software. This isn't a reason to use Zsh, it's a reason to not use MacOS. I think most of the arguments in favour of Zsh get this the wrong way around.
Then there're ash and dash. I have no particular opinion of them but think they're OK.
I've tried fish. I don't particularly like it. Nothing I can put my finger on, just feels like a whole lot of pointless features and colours that don't really help me, and a slew of things that aren't quite compatible enough.
I think MUDsh is hilarious but also hilariously unusable. I totally recommend giving it a go.
Everything else, your Cees and Kays and TeeCees and their kin, are older than power suits and shoulder pads and they feel like it.
I'm quite a heavy scripter, even though - like most users I suspect - I don't use at least 50% of the features of the shell anyway. Bash is enough, and it's reliably enough.