I trust users who know how to use the shell to be able to decide what suits them best and to not be paralyzed by indecision between their system's default terminal emulator and some guy's obscure hobby terminal system.
I was specifically calling out the text editor comment of your parent, but there are many different choices for shells.
Bourne, ash, bash, dash, ksh, mksh, zsh, csh, tcsh, rc, GNU Screen, etc, Each of them has a slightly different featureset. You can go with the default of bash and it could work out very well for you, but you'd be turning down potentially better alternatives. You seem pretty derisive towards hobbyist projects for a site called "Hacker News". That hobbyist project could be the best thing you've ever used, but you'll never know. That was the entire point of my original post.
I did not imply that the default thing is necessarily better than hobby thing, but that someone who knows enough to know what a shell is knows what they want and how to get it. And if they made a poor choice, so what? It's easy to change one's mind.
Scrutinizing an idea for a new method of programmer-computer interaction from the perspective of a newcomer makes little sense to me, as does the "competing standards" thing from a neighboring comment, scrutinizing OP's idea for being potentially unable to win a popularity contest. OP's terminal system isn't a standard struggling to gain widespread public acceptance. It's just some guy's program.
I think that an idea about programmer-computer interaction ought to be scrutinized for its merit in facilitating programmer-computer interaction, and that criticism from a perspective that isn't the programmer's and isn't the computer's is useless.
PS. You forgot one of the most interesting Unix shells, es. It could turn out to be the best shell you've ever used.
