Live data from Hacker News

Fish shell

fishshell.com

41–50 of 120 posts

Re: Fish shell

#41

Nit: Fish Shell is a bit redundant, as Fish stands for "Friendly Interactive Shell". Now that's out of my system, fish is fantastic and made me realise importance of sensible defaults. I tried zsh but configuration took longer than I would have liked, and oh-my-zsh is too bloated to start instantly. Compared to that, I have practically 0 modifications in my Fish config, apart from few aliases. I don't use fish for mo…

It is a bit redundant, but that's not the same thing as saying it's bad or author should have eliminated this redundancy. I think of this a bit like a Checksum, which is also a redundancy... it reduces cognitive load/likelihood of error by the reader when parsing this particular acronym. Like ATM can mean both "At the moment" and "Automated Teller Machine", saying "ATM Machine" helps disambiguate (in a way) which acr…

Any medium of human communication (text, speech, body language, etc...) is lossy. Humans need acknowledgment, retransmission, and redundancy.

Re: Fish shell

#42
post #16

So the massive drawback of fish is it's incompatible with bash (and other shells people use). If you're in fish, this is easily remedied because almost every machine has bash too. However, you can't expect another machine to have fish. However, I just really like fish. I also live out of my own shell, and I don't spend much of my life remote-ing into other machines. When I do, my mind flips into bash just as easily a…

About 98% of common POSIX shell usage is covered by fish, right down to identical syntax. (Not everything is.)

Biggest tip for fish switchers: set fish as your terminal's shell instead of changing your login shell.

Re: Fish shell

#43
post #40

I've been using fish for a year. I don't bash much, so that's a data point. I really enjoy it. Faster than zsh once it's loaded with all the plugins that make it behave like default fish.

> Faster than zsh

Definitely, and it's noticeable.

> once it's loaded with all the plugins that make it behave like default fish

Fish also feels more cohesive in this situation; a case of built-in features being more refined due to being under the purview of maintainers and shipped to everyone.

Re: Fish shell

#44
post #29
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Redundancy is usually just incorrect How is it incorrect?

Perhaps a weaker way of putting it is that it is colloquial, but not proper form.

> not proper form

Which is annoying to those who value form more than function.

Re: Fish shell

#45
post #4

In case you were wondering, here are some people who are either slightly amused or just as confused [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/search?q=a%20command%20line%20shell%20fo...

Most of them were unable to voice any concerns beyond mocking the outdated motto. It seems like these people are clueless.

Re: Fish shell

#46
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a weaker way of putting it is that it is colloquial, but not proper form.

> not proper form Which is annoying to those who value form more than function.

Sure. I don't have an opinion one way or another and almost certainly "misuse" acronyms.

Re: Fish shell

#47
post #3

I did myself a favour, and instead of learning a new shell read through grymoire's POSIX shell tutorial: https://www.grymoire.com/Unix/Sh.html .

I'm a fish user for over 10 years now; for me a big part of the appeal of fish was (and still is) that I could get a much better quality of life without having to train myself to wizard-level with the less ergonomic but ubiquitous bash. I'm sure any black belt bash wizard will leave me in the dust on every metric, but that's fine, I don't need my shell environment to be super optimized for maximum effectiveness, it j…

+1 for this. Fish is kinda like the Emacs of terminal editors in my mind: it's more dependent on keybindings than it is command invocations.

Re: Fish shell

#48
post #16

So the massive drawback of fish is it's incompatible with bash (and other shells people use). If you're in fish, this is easily remedied because almost every machine has bash too. However, you can't expect another machine to have fish. However, I just really like fish. I also live out of my own shell, and I don't spend much of my life remote-ing into other machines. When I do, my mind flips into bash just as easily a…

About 98% of common POSIX shell usage is covered by fish, right down to identical syntax. (Not everything is.) Biggest tip for fish switchers: set fish as your terminal's shell instead of changing your login shell.

> Biggest tip for fish switchers: set fish as your terminal's shell instead of changing your login shell.

That's an interesting idea - I will try that. This bit me recently when I used Migration Assistant to move from a Mac with Catalina to one with Big Sur; my login shell was still set to the path for fish installed via Homebrew, but none of those packages were copied over. I managed to hack around it by copying bash into that location so that I could reinstall Homebrew and fish to finish repairing things.

Re: Fish shell

#49

Anyone using fish in Vim mode? Does it work well? Last time I tried I had not such a good time. Would love to see a tutorial on how to use it efficiently.

Yep, what kind of issues you had? Works well for me. Not sure what do you mean by efficiently -- but my tip is pressing alt-e to edit the command in external editor when it's multiline (although it's not limited to vi mode in fish)
Post reply on HN