Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
21–30 of 155 posts
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#22Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#23Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#24They 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?
a. Superb readline colouring. Nonexistent commands are shown in red, commands that exist and are on PATH in green. Unclosed string literals become obvious.
b. A history search that is orders of magnitude better that Ctrl-r in Bash. (Though oh-my-zsh has the history-substring-search plugin which provides this functionality.)
c. Features work out of the box, fish helps you avoid managing a .zshrc equivalent file.
d. Tab completion offers hints. If I type l, I get:
leaftoppm (Convert Interleaf image format to a portable anymap)
less (Opposite of more)
lessecho (Expand metacharacters)
lessfile ("input preprocessor" for less.)
lesskey (Specify key bindings for less)
lesspipe ("input preprocessor" for less.)
lexgrog (Parse header information in man pages)
(These summaries are the first lines of the man pages.)2: I've only seen it crash on me once, which matches my experience with zsh. YMMV.
I used fish exclusively for a number of years, but eventually moved back to something sh-compatible. Too many wrapper scripts assume this.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#25Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#26Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#27Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#28I 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 !!"?