Ahaha. I like the sense of humor.
I shall have to give it a try!
Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
51–60 of 155 posts
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#52They 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?
To be fair, it's "Finally, a command line shell for the 90s."
I couldn't agree more. We've been using shells from the 80's for far too long.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#53Anyone managed to make it run in cygwin? Bash completion in cygwin makes the shell very slooooow to start.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#54When using auto-completion is there a way not to use arrow keys? Especially when completing a match it seems like I need to use the right arrow key. I would prefer not to use arrow keys at all, but use something like CTRL+(HJKL).
Yes, you can use Ctrl + F instead of right arrow key to autocomplete.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#55They 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?
1: 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.…
I do not understand your last paragraph. Don't your wrapper scripts have "#!/bin/sh" at the top?
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#56Is there any possibility to provide vi mode? Like 'set -o vi' in bash.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
~/.config/fish/config.fish http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/user_doc/html/index.html#ini...
I don't see that there...
It should be there if you've installed fishfish, if you feel it's a bug please consider opening an issue on github : https://github.com/ridiculousfish/fishfish/issues
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#58Doesn't seem to be in Homebrew yet (I mean this fork; the original Fish is there).
That brings me to the question: What is different in this fork? Is it worth to use this fork or should I stick to the original?
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#59I just tried it out, I use zsh and don't really look for replacement, but my first impression is that things are much more snappy and significantly faster in fish. I liked how help opened browser, even though I was startled a little bit.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ba…
Bash has completion, of course, but does it have autocompletion? Big difference as getting completions without hitting the tab key changes how you interact with the line editor.