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.
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.
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.
Citation needed :)