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

Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s

ridiculousfish.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 155 posts

Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s

#41

Post by andrewaylett »

bazzargh wrote: post #12
aaronsw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

There's no reason middle-click shouldn't be paste on PuTTY -- it's a configuration option.

Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s

#42

Post by jeekl »

g3orge wrote: post #39
llambda wrote: post #17

I'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 a…

can zsh autocomplete man pages?

Yes it can. Add something like this to your zsh config:

  zstyle ':completion:*:manuals'    separate-sections true
  zstyle ':completion:*:manuals.*'  insert-sections   true
  zstyle ':completion:*:man:*'      menu yes select

Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s

#43

Post by adimitrov »

g3orge wrote: post #39
llambda wrote: post #17

I'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 a…

can zsh autocomplete man pages?

Yes. zsh can also auto-complete command line arguments for a lot of commonly used commands (including the GNU utilities, git, mutt, mplayer, imagemagick's convert and others.)

Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s

#44

Post by bstpierre »

ash wrote: post #31
icarus127 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. No need to mess with configs. Works out of the box. 2. Breaking Bourne Shell compatibility. Personally I find Bourne syntax hard to learn and hard to read. Fish syntax is much better. [1, 2] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell [2]: http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/user_doc/html/index.html

Sounds like there's no reason for me to switch.

I've already messed with configs and everything is stable now, so that's a sunk cost.

I already know bourne-style syntax, so learning fish (even if it's easier) is an added cost, not to mention the fact that I have to work on various boxes that I can't install fish on so it's easier to have my fingers know how to operate a single shell (zsh) that's generally backwards-compatible with bash (which is ubiquitous).

Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s

#45

Post by p4bl0 »

adimitrov wrote: post #43
g3orge wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can zsh autocomplete man pages?

Yes. zsh can also auto-complete command line arguments for a lot of commonly used commands (including the GNU utilities, git, mutt, mplayer, imagemagick's convert and others.)

Bash too can do that. It does by default in Debian for instance, it also does cool things like autocompleting filenames based on which command is already typed (so it won't autocomplete to some pdf filename if the command is mplayer), autocompletion depending on config files (alias from ~/.ssh/config and /etc/hosts, remotes from the git config, package names when the command is apt-*…).

About fish, for the history based autocompletion of commands, how is that different from Bash's C-r?

Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s

#46

Post by rplnt »

Unfortunately I can't try this right now, but do suggestions support something like taking only part of the suggestion? I.e. move left/right from cursor into the suggestion instead of writing. Shift+Arrow would work as expected, thus allowing quickly using part of the suggestion and writing the rest out if needed. It seems to be a better solution than deleting things from the end.

Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s

#50

Post by maw »

nickpresta wrote: post #33

The package doesn't work on Debian testing/unstable/experimental: fish: /lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by fish) (I am running GLIB 2.13). I tried compiling from source, but I am clearly missing dependencies. So far, I had to install: libncurses5-dev, gettext, xsel, libxt-dev (alternatively, I could use --without-xsel and ignore these last two depends). You may want t…

Maybe you already know this, but glibc and glib are two entirely different libraries. (The similarity in their names is unfortunate.) So be precise when asking for help.
Post reply on HN