Fish Shell 3.2

Post by t0astbread » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

jonfw wrote: post #81

sdfjkl wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by dividedbyzero » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 7:19 PM UTC

t0astbread wrote: post #92

jonfw wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless you source a lot of shared scripts why would it matter what shell you use interactively? You can install fish and bash side by side and use one in your terminal and one for scripting.

Post by t0astbread » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

Siecje wrote: post #15

joseluisq wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us use it, I personally in my daily basis development Fish shell is pretty neat and increases productivity in terminal. However I still use Bash in the server side where I need for example, explicit error aborting like `set -e` that Fish doesn't have yet. https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/510

set -e is not great and is not recommended. http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/105

Post by omginternets » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

jonfw wrote: post #79

omginternets wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd just like to add that if you're considering the switch but are worried about compatibility with bash, things have gotten better. I wouldn't call it outright compatible, but the most problematic differences in syntax (e.g. the absence of &&) went away a few years ago. If it didn't quite stick the first time, I think it's worth trying again.

The parsing and setting of environment variables was always my #1 hassle with fish. I feel like I see a lot of BASH snippets that get copy pasted around that I always had to re-write or throw in a sub shell. Particularly annoying when you're trying to do something while screen sharing and somebody gives you a snippet which you have to re-write before using it- "Oh yeah it's a hassle but I've got sweet auto-complete"…

Post by omginternets » Mon, Mar 01, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

mhink wrote: post #91

jonfw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parsing and setting of environment variables was always my #1 hassle with fish. I feel like I see a lot of BASH snippets that get copy pasted around that I always had to re-write or throw in a sub shell. Particularly annoying when you're trying to do something while screen sharing and somebody gives you a snippet which you have to re-write before using it- "Oh yeah it's a hassle but I've got sweet auto-complete"…

IMO, copy-and-pasting bash commands is an organizational smell to begin with, but I don't think this particular use case is a reason not to use one shell over another. If you do have a snippet of bash to run, it's easy enough to toss it in a file (with a shebang) and run it as a shell script. And as a bonus, it's reusable and you can add comments/notes for when you have to run it again.