"The dash shell is actually reasonably pleasant for interactive use when compiled with libedit."
For me it's the preferred interactive shell. When compiling dash with libedit, I edit dash source to enable tabcomplete. Then it feels more like NetBSD.
I've been running an experiment using busybox bash instead of dash as both interactive and scripting shell; have discovered numerous busybox idiosyncracies as a result. One thing I like about busybox bash is it's command history search: Ctrl-r. A bit faster than libedit.
busybox "ash" is littered with "bash-like" features. Searching command history using Ctrl-R is just one of many. IMO, it has enough changes from NetBSD sh and Debian sh that it is neither ash nor bash. Regardless, I should have referred to it as "busybox ash". Apologies for the inadvertence.
busybox includes a config option to include a "bash" applet name that points to "ash"; typing "busybox" one will then see "bash" listed as an applet, but is the same shell
Sometimes when compiling software, authors insist on using bash scripts at compile-time rather than sh scripts. Trying to use busybox ash to run these scripts will fail because there is no applet called "bash". There might be another workaround but I find it useful to compile busybox to include a "bash" applet name.
For me it's the preferred interactive shell. When compiling dash with libedit, I edit dash source to enable tabcomplete. Then it feels more like NetBSD.
I've been running an experiment using busybox bash instead of dash as both interactive and scripting shell; have discovered numerous busybox idiosyncracies as a result. One thing I like about busybox bash is it's command history search: Ctrl-r. A bit faster than libedit.
NB. "set -o vi" can be abbreviated to "set -V"