[flagged]
Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
61–70 of 204 posts
Re: Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
#62Is fish better than Zsh?
It's 'easier' for some people but you lose GNU bash compatibility and it kinda underlines all of the issues with interactive only shell systems -- a lack of interoperability.
It's honestly a non-issue in the current year to learn zsh or tcsh
Re: Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
#63Another rewrite? Hope it'll take off this time
Re: Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
#64> The one platform we care about a bit that it does not currently seem to have enough support for is Cygwin, which is sad, but we have to make a cut somewhere. > We’re also losing Cygwin as a supported platform for the time being, because there is no Rust target for Cygwin and so no way to build binaries targeting it. We hope that this situation changes in future, but we had also hoped it would improve during the alm…
genuinely curious: with so much love for cygwin, why not just run Linux? possibly with a dual boot?
Switching between OSes is a hassle. Besides WSL already has all the loveable parts of Linux, there isn't much point in dual booting anymore
Re: Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
#65I remember switching from bash to zsh a few years back and thinking I was the bees knees. After the switch trying other shells seemed like bike-shedding because, I mean, what more could a shell? Then I got a new computer and decided to start from scratch with my tooling and downloaded fish. I was shocked how it instantly made zsh feel cumbersome and ancient . Heartily recommend others give it a try as a daily driver…
Same here. I used it for about 3 days before I installed it on all my systems and permanently switched. For me, it was like the first time I learned a non-Latin language, and my eyes were opened to how much stuff I took for granted was completely arbitrary. For example, here's how you write an autoloaded function "foo" in Fish: you make a file called "foo.fish" in its config directory. Inside that, you write "functio…
Is the “foo.fish” name required? Could I have “bar.fish” with “function foo…” inside and still autoload function foo?
Re: Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
genuinely curious: with so much love for cygwin, why not just run Linux? possibly with a dual boot?
Switching between OSes is a hassle. Besides WSL already has all the loveable parts of Linux, there isn't much point in dual booting anymore
If you’re using WSL, why use Cygwin?
Re: Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. I used it for about 3 days before I installed it on all my systems and permanently switched. For me, it was like the first time I learned a non-Latin language, and my eyes were opened to how much stuff I took for granted was completely arbitrary. For example, here's how you write an autoloaded function "foo" in Fish: you make a file called "foo.fish" in its config directory. Inside that, you write "functio…
Is the “foo.fish” name required? Could I have “bar.fish” with “function foo…” inside and still autoload function foo?
Not autoload, no. You can have as many functions as you want in a single .fish file, but it'll only be lazily autoloaded if it has the same name as the command you are trying to execute. It's how we avoid doing the I/O of scanning all fish directories and parsing their contents at startup.
Re: Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
#68I love fish and I’ve been a user for years. In the wake of AI, I am really interested in getting out of completes via a local tiny AI model
Does the fish team have any plans for integrating AI models for other completion?
Re: Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
#69I love fish and I’ve been a user for years. In the wake of AI, I am really interested in getting out of completes via a local tiny AI model Does the fish team have any plans for integrating AI models for other completion?
We ship fish with completions ollama and llm, maybe others. We don't have any plans to "integrate" AI into the actual codebase.
Re: Fish 4.0: The Fish of Theseus
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's somewhat interesting that they point to Debian's popcon (which is opt-in), when the statistics are basically coming from amd64, whereas I think it would be much more interesting (if possible) to see what the number of installs of fish are on openwrt (and other embedded distros). Currently the openwrt fish install is ~2MB (which is massive on a router), I wonder what the new install size will be with the ru…
Rust binaries, once stripped, are not necessarily much fatter than their C++ counterparts. We're not expecting a huge increase there. Embedded distros should still be supported, though you might need to cross-compile for a few depending on rust toolchain availability. Cygwin is supposed to be getting a working rust target at some point, but who knows?
I fully expect fish 4.0 to be in openwrt (because openwrt runs on x86_64), but what percentage openwrt machines have the space to run it would be interesting (I suspect it won't be an issue, as likely those near the lower limit of openwrt are probably sticking with busybox anyway, and not installing a different shell).
Personally, what I want is inexpensive hardware (routers, but also storage devices) that don't use much power (e.g. ~5W) but are also viable targets for projects like fish, so we can all have nice things.