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

The fish shell is amazing

rmpr.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 302 posts

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#111

Post by sigmonsays »

peterhil wrote: post #106

Have you tried Oil Shell? http://www.oilshell.org/

I've got way too many years of bash under my belt to invest in another shell. I gave oil shell a solid look and decided to not use it. While that may sound wrong, I dont see oil shell having enough features that are different enough to sway people over. I can't think of the saying here, but essentially its not disruptive in the shell space.

Also, it's just shell. By the time I end up with a complicated shell script, i've rewritten it in go, python, etc.

This is just my two cents, if I see more people talking about and using oil shell, I may reconsider.

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#112

Post by joshmanders »

emersion wrote: post #91
thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #63

Shells and scripting languages are different things. I don't care how good of a scripting language Powershell is, it's painful to use as a shell. I don't care that fish can't run sh scripts, I've never used it on a machine that didn't have sh. Can we stop judging oranges for their lack of crunch?

It's pretty common to copy-paste POSIX sh one-liners, or `source` a simple script. fish makes this annoying to do.

The only issue I ran into this was when the one liners had subshell syntax $(cmd here), and all I had to do was convert $() to just ().

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#113

Post by slifin »

Fish is so good I think I'm using shellder and some other bits

But I just use it as a way to run commands, and I use dynamic languages to create scripts just not bash..

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#114

Post by MaulingMonkey »

pxc wrote: post #74
thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #63

Shells and scripting languages are different things. I don't care how good of a scripting language Powershell is, it's painful to use as a shell. I don't care that fish can't run sh scripts, I've never used it on a machine that didn't have sh. Can we stop judging oranges for their lack of crunch?

Ideally you do want them to be the same, so that the skill of using one reinforces the skill of using the other, and you can begin to shape scripts out of your shell history. Output redirection doesn't work right with Fish functions, which makes them unusable in certain kinds of scripts. Aside from that, though, Fish is perfectly pleasant for simple scripting. I use Fish for simple stuff and PowerShell for anything s…

> Ideally you do want them to be the same, so that the skill of using one reinforces the skill of using the other,

I've used several dozen shells, script languages, and programming languages - and have needed to do within the context of a single job. What's one more? For an interactive shell I prioritize writeability, and for scripts I prioritize readability and maintainability. These are often at odds - not just in what I write, but in the syntax itself - and by making my shell and script the same, I make middling compromises resulting in a jack of all trades that is a master of none.

I disagree that this is "ideal".

> and you can begin to shape scripts out of your shell history.

It's been my experience that this is quite doable even when the scripting language has different syntax than your shell. Oh, sure, it's not as simple as Copy+Paste - but it's never that simple. Even simple shell scripts inevitably end up needing error checking, sanity checks, error messages, ...

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#115

Post by beermonster »

Is there anyone who can provide a simple summary for bash v zsh vs fish? Maybe I’m lazy but I’ve just stuck with bash for.. well since ever. Maybe it’s time to try something new but then if it ain’t broke… anyway would be interested in what things it does that I never knew I needed or things which just make life simpler/easier.

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#116

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

beermonster wrote: post #115

Is there anyone who can provide a simple summary for bash v zsh vs fish? Maybe I’m lazy but I’ve just stuck with bash for.. well since ever. Maybe it’s time to try something new but then if it ain’t broke… anyway would be interested in what things it does that I never knew I needed or things which just make life simpler/easier.

https://fishshell.com/docs/current/fish_for_bash_users.html#...

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#117

Post by emilecantin »

beermonster wrote: post #115

Is there anyone who can provide a simple summary for bash v zsh vs fish? Maybe I’m lazy but I’ve just stuck with bash for.. well since ever. Maybe it’s time to try something new but then if it ain’t broke… anyway would be interested in what things it does that I never knew I needed or things which just make life simpler/easier.

Autocomplete is much better. For example, just typing "y" displays "arn start" in gray _after_ my cursor. I can then refine my command, or use right-arrow to accept the suggestion.

And this is just one example; fish is full of small usability touches like that.

If you need to run a bash script, `bash the_script.sh` still works

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#118

Post by jrm4 »

Specific question for anyone who's gone from bash to fish (and maybe back) -- Does the "only splitting on newlines" mess you up? I've just been in bash so long that I feel like this will get me?

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#119

Post by kbd »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #101
kbd wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a cool argument for Fish for beginners. When you spend thousands of hours in a shell that doesn't matter as much. I don't see any benefit for someone who has Zsh set up well, but yes you do have to google once how to configure auto-completion and so on.

Probably little for anyone who has any shell “set up well”. Just if they are tired of spending time tweaking things and would rather more capable out of the box experiences so they can benefit from features added to the core shell without hunting for plugins. I use Fish, however I also use Vim and do the plugin hunt there. I enjoy it, but I’m glad to not be doing it for both my environments.

Comparing the "plugin hunt" between vim and zsh is a bit much. I use three for Zsh, just syntax highlighting, autosuggestions, and fzf-tab. I don't use a Zsh plugin manager.

Re: The fish shell is amazing

#120

Post by mattgreenrocks »

joshmanders wrote: post #112
emersion wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty common to copy-paste POSIX sh one-liners, or `source` a simple script. fish makes this annoying to do.

The only issue I ran into this was when the one liners had subshell syntax $(cmd here), and all I had to do was convert $() to just ().

AFAIK that will be remedied in an upcoming release.
Post reply on HN