Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fish Shell 3.2

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Fish Shell 3.2

#81

Post by jonfw »

sdfjkl wrote: post #23
ComputerGuru wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to fish a very long time ago (2009 maybe?) because it started up so much faster than zsh w/ all the plugins that it took to get the fancy features fish had out of the box. Since then, fish has only become a lot faster as we have focused on performance and optimizations considerably.

I tried zsh after fish and my impression was somewhat like this: Okay, so I got to do a lot of customizing to get this to work nearly as well as fish does out of the box - can't be bothered!

My impression of ZSH after fish is "ok this made for a really annoying couple of hours to set things up, but now I'll never have an incompatibility hassle again!"

When I was in school and working on my own stuff I liked using fringe shells like xonsh and fish, but working in teams I feel like I need a pretty significant productivity increase to justify using a different tool than everybody else.

Re: Fish Shell 3.2

#82

Post by acdha »

kstrauser wrote: post #78
acdha wrote: post #37

I put off switching from bash for years but quit cold turkey for fish a couple of years ago, and find myself appreciating that almost daily. One of the underappreciated values is that while you can configure it you get great functionality out of the box. Switching was chsh, picking a theme in the interactive config, and going back to work. The only I’ve really felt the need to do was to add the Terraform workspace to…

I made myself use Fish for a week as an experiment. Day one was a little rough. Day two was easier. On day three I decided to customize my prompt, and after seeing how trivially easy that was (you write a fish function called "fish_prompt" that uses shell commands to build your prompt) compared to Zsh or Bash, I was... hooked.

I definitely built up the switching costs in my head based on past experience with zsh. Good defaults are easy to undervalue.

Re: Fish Shell 3.2

#83

Post by kemayo »

Zhyl wrote: post #3

I'm surprised that Fish isn't used more for education. I don't know of any distros aimed at new users which have fish as the default. I don't think I've seen any tutorials that use fish to teach shell concepts. It seems like such a missed opportunity, especially at a time when Linux Gaming is on the rise. There's a whole audience that would have the activation energy of getting into shell scripting lowered by being s…

I think the lack of being able to reliably copy in commands from tutorials is the biggest issue there. Needing to translate any bash command that uses command substitution is a pain, and is very newbie-unfriendly if they run into it.

Re: Fish Shell 3.2

#84

Post by mixmastamyk »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #17

I think Fish is an excellent interactive shell. I've still got Bash as my default shell for non-interactive sessions, but I configured Konsole to start Fish by default for interactive use (Settings->Command, set to the path to the fish executable). That way scripts that need Bash still work, but I get a sane environment for interaction. For "portable" scripts I write POSIX shell, C, or Python, depending on what I nee…

Shebangs direct scripts to the right interpreter. Setting a default interactive shell won’t override it.

Re: Fish Shell 3.2

#85

Post by sixstringtheory »

NegativeLatency wrote: post #73
lorenzfx wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is my pet peeve with fish, but the last command that started with what you typed cannot be completed that way. For that, you need to use right-arrow. I kept a fork of fish for that purpose for some time, but that was really too much hassle and I went back to zsh. Which is pretty sad, because otherwise fish is amazing.

ctrl + e or end will complete commands in that case

IIUC, right-arrow also does, and option-right-arrow will complete individual arguments from the last command one by one (macOS).

Re: Fish Shell 3.2

#86

Post by hjek »

edoceo wrote: post #52
spamizbad wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming zsh is already doing everything you want the biggest thing you're missing is speed.

WTF are you doing where shell "speed" is the bottleneck? How does it happen that your shell starts "slow". This post has lots of speed comments. I don't get it. Are bash pipes slower than others? Do folk have a shell that takes longer than 250ms to start?

Not OP but fish's fuzzy autocomplete is snappy, especially on low-end hardware even when I mistype a lot, where zsh will often just freeze completely, for me at least.

Re: Fish Shell 3.2

#87

Post by [deleted] »

meddlepal wrote: post #50

I used fish for a couple years but switched back to zsh. I found the incompatibilities with bash/zsh to be annoying at times and finally just decided to do the "When in Rome do as the Romans" do thing and adopt zsh.

[deleted]

Re: Fish Shell 3.2

#88

Post by gregwebs »

meddlepal wrote: post #50

I used fish for a couple years but switched back to zsh. I found the incompatibilities with bash/zsh to be annoying at times and finally just decided to do the "When in Rome do as the Romans" do thing and adopt zsh.

I had the same experience (but only used fish for a few months). I am quite happy with zsh after settling on zim [1] for plugins and starship for the prompt (starship supports many different shells) [2]. My main takeaway from fish is was that we deserve great autocompletion. The zim autocompletion module is almost as good as fish.

[1] https://github.com/zimfw/zimfw

[2] https://starship.rs

Re: Fish Shell 3.2

#90

Post by flohofwoe »

apetrovic wrote: post #62
flohofwoe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. If you miss fish's smart auto-completion I can recommend this zsh plugin though: https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-autosuggestions

Sadly, this plugin is a pale copy of fish's power - it isn't folder-aware (fish will offer different suggestions for different folders) and it isn't context aware (fish will try to autocomplete the current line based on the context of the current folder, zsh-autosuggestion will just blindly offer history line that starts with what's typed)

zsh-autosuggestion definitely has per-folder suggestions, in normal day-to-day work I haven't seen a difference to fish so far (fish may have added features in the last two years that I'm not aware of, but the basic context-senstive suggestions are definitely supported).
Post reply on HN