umm, lot of these can (which is the operative word here) be made to work together with plan9's acme...
A lot of these also works quite similar to Emacs (M-x shell).
Xiki: An amazing shell
21–30 of 130 posts
Re: Xiki: An amazing shell
#22I quite like fish and have been using it painlessly for nearly 6 months now. I wish fish included an actual programming language that could replace bash scripts, but the sane advice from fish devs is to use a real programming language instead of bash or another shell script. Other than that I've become quite dependent on the nice autocomplete and suggestions from fish. It just works and I never have to deal with any…
I've been thinking about trying out Fish shell for awhile, though I have zsh setup to my liking.
Concerning Xiki, it definitely remind me of Emacs org mode / shell.
Re: Xiki: An amazing shell
#23The fact that this shell has Twitter functionality is a signal, and I can't decide if it's a negative signal or not. I've worked very hard to avoid a Twitter capable refrigerator.
I think the means you can use it to script twitter functionality via twitter's REST API.
Re: Xiki: An amazing shell
#24looks like the vim browser with a bash file that can be commented (and run and given to friends).
Re: Xiki: An amazing shell
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's really great to see someone really thinking from scratch about the shell Arguably, PowerShell is shell reinvented too. But IMO someone definitely should revamp the Unix shell. If we're not talking about the actual functionality (commands etc.) but the "building blocks", I actually like PowerShell more than traditional Unix shells at this point. This shell however fails to impress me, I don't see the point.
What features would you like to see in a Unix-like shell that are not available?
I think passing around real objects instead of character strings is cool. It's less brittle, and you don't have to have an ad-hoc and flawed parser at every step.
Re: Xiki: An amazing shell
#26I need it. Anything similar already available?
From the brief time I spent with Emacs, I think its shell integration can work like that, but you'll need to write some elisp code to get all the features he shows for xiki.
Re: Xiki: An amazing shell
#27I quite like fish and have been using it painlessly for nearly 6 months now. I wish fish included an actual programming language that could replace bash scripts, but the sane advice from fish devs is to use a real programming language instead of bash or another shell script. Other than that I've become quite dependent on the nice autocomplete and suggestions from fish. It just works and I never have to deal with any…
I've been thinking about trying out Fish shell for awhile, though I have zsh setup to my liking.
Concerning Xiki, it definitely remind me of Emacs org mode / shell.
Re: Xiki: An amazing shell
#28Holy freaking crap that's amazing. I love how the video all of the sudden starts to show 9000 features/ways it can be used. Looks like the paradigm adapts well to many different common workflows. It's really great to see someone really thinking from scratch about the shell -- something that very rarely goes through any meaningful changes like this. I hope this project goes far and becomes the new default.
This reminds me of ACME http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acme_(text_editor). To me it doesn't look like something new at all.
The cool thing about this project is it doesn't interrupt how you use your mouse. Using acme makes you learn how to use a mouse again like going from vim to emacs makes all your keybindings screw up.
Not that i'm saying copying acme is a bad thing, that editor is really underated.
Re: Xiki: An amazing shell
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
What features would you like to see in a Unix-like shell that are not available?
I think passing around real objects instead of character strings is cool. It's less brittle, and you don't have to have an ad-hoc and flawed parser at every step.
So, shell commands that produce and consume JSON?
Re: Xiki: An amazing shell
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think passing around real objects instead of character strings is cool. It's less brittle, and you don't have to have an ad-hoc and flawed parser at every step.
So, shell commands that produce and consume JSON?
No, objects. Non-text. Real data. Plus methods.
Read a PowerShell primer to better understand this. PowerShell is geniusly designed and horribly implemented, so there's little point actually using it, but UNIX could really really use some of its ideas.