A "dizzying assortment of features" is not automatically a good thing.
The features need to be able to do useful things better somehow, and that's where articles demoing such applications come in.
"Better" also doesn't necessarily mean "more concise," otherwise APL would be one of the best programming languages. A language with a smaller number of accessible, comprehensible, memorable features can prove more useful in practice than one with a "dizzying assortment" that's hard to remember, difficult to read, etc.
I've used Zsh for 15 years or more, and when I started I read the manual. (I realize this is unthinkable nowadays.)
I noted down the things I thought would be useful day-to-day, and started using them. A few months later, I skimmed through the manual again. I still do so, every year or two. My work gradually changes, and I find Zsh has features that are now useful to me.
There are an endless number of programs I could be using. There are an endless number of programs you could be using.
The issue is how to decide whether something is worth looking at.
An article which gives examples that can easily be achieved by some more mainstream system is unconvincing. That's what was being discussed here:
> This is always my complaint about posts like this. I read them looking for the killer feature to make me consider switching from bash and it's always stuff bash does natively or with a one line alias.
