They need to update the slogan? "A command line shell for the 90s" doesn't really draw me in.
What I want to know:
1. In what specific ways is it better than zsh?
2. Is it absolutely, rock-solid stable?
Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
11–20 of 155 posts
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did they pick the exact same name?
Presumably because fish hasn't been updated since 2009 and they expect their fork to become the new standard version. http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/beta.html "Welcome to our fork of the fish shell, a command line shell like bash. Its working name is fishfish, but I hope eventually it will just be fish!"
Obvious joke is obvious, but he could have called it the Unno Fish Shell?
Looks interesting. I expect my fingers will be even more confused than ever switching machines now (they've never learned that Alt-3 isn't # on linux or that middle-click isn't paste in Putty)
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#13I use fish ( http://fishshell.com/ ), and it's amazing. However, they're missing the most important feature from their front page: Syntax highlighting! Valid executables are colored green, as you type. Invalid commands are red, as you type. Valid files are underlined, as you type. Like the carpenter who can feels the feedback of the grain of the wood through the handle of his plane can adjust his technique as he plan…
I stopped using fish a while ago, when it would crash whenever I opened a console session (so I couldn't do anything when X didn't start). I switched to zsh with fish emulation, but lately I realized I have a shell that takes much longer to start up and basically does everything fish does, and nothing more. If fishfish is more stable, I'll switch in a heartbeat.
I'd been using fish for a year or two before switching to zsh too.
The main reason for me to give it up is because I could not get it to work smoothly with rvm.
I've gotten quite used to zsh by now, and I have to say, I don't feel much for having another go at fish just to run into the same limitations again.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#14I use fish ( http://fishshell.com/ ), and it's amazing. However, they're missing the most important feature from their front page: Syntax highlighting! Valid executables are colored green, as you type. Invalid commands are red, as you type. Valid files are underlined, as you type. Like the carpenter who can feels the feedback of the grain of the wood through the handle of his plane can adjust his technique as he plan…
zsh has a plugin for fish-style syntax highlighting: https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#15I really like what I see, but I don't understand their reasoning for leaving out history substitution (see http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/user_doc/html/faq.html#faq-h...).
Why can't a better interactive history go hand in hand with something like "sudo !!"?
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#16They need to update the slogan? "A command line shell for the 90s" doesn't really draw me in. What I want to know: 1. In what specific ways is it better than zsh? 2. Is it absolutely, rock-solid stable?
I'm wondering about the answer to #1 as well. After trying this out for a bit there's nothing obvious and there are definitely things I miss.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#17I've been using the original fish[1] for years. I'm very biased, I love fish for many reasons and despite the claims that zsh can do the same things I've never had cause to switch from it. Now it was quite disappointing to see the original fish project seemingly halted. So this isn't simply great news, in the sense that development has been picked back up in the fishfish fork, some great improvements have been made at the same time!
* autosuggestion
(this actually has a great amount of utility for me.
it complements tab-completion quite well!)
* optional web-based config
(great for quickly editing your config settings)
* speed improvements
(although I never suffered from much lag with fish
to begin with)
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#18They need to update the slogan? "A command line shell for the 90s" doesn't really draw me in. What I want to know: 1. In what specific ways is it better than zsh? 2. Is it absolutely, rock-solid stable?
When I saw the slogan, I thought it was ironic. I kind of like it.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did they pick the exact same name?
It's not called that yet: "Its working name is fishfish, but I hope eventually it will just be fish!" The ambition is quite reasonable as work on the fish shell itself has petered out, there was a recent dead cat bounce after a long fallow period, but it seems to be back to stasis there.
Well.. they do have quite a list of possibilities to piggy back off ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_fish_names ) that could reduce confusion but still maintain similarity.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#20This is missing the point of a shell by a mile. Extra features are nice. As an extra. Preferably on top of a rock solid platform that works everywhere, on everything, under any conditions. Same reason your PC boots in 16 bit real mode.
I'm quite happy living in the 80s.