Live data from Hacker News

Fish shell

fishshell.com

31–40 of 188 posts

Re: Fish shell

#31
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest thing that swayed me to stick with (and optimize/customize) Prezto was the fact that most of the systems I work with have zsh, or a relatively modern version of it available in repos. Can't say the same for fish.

If you don't mind adding external repositories, you can get up to date versions of fish for most distros. http://fishshell.com/#get_fish_linux

More a question of corporate best practices than minding, but I appreciate the link!

Re: Fish shell

#32
post #12

How does this compare with zsh + ohmyzsh?

Much faster, but much less configurable. If you have a decent config on ohmyzsh already, and it doesn't take too long to start up (you have an SSD), there is little point in switching to fish IMO. Especially if you use a lot of these things: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues?q=is%3Aissue...

Re: Fish shell

#33
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it take some fiddling (configuration etc) with urxvt to bring it a minimal usable state Yes. urxvt is pretty minimal and will likely be rather ugly by default. However, you can customize pretty much everything via editing your Xresources file. In terms of advantages over gnome-terminal... it's lighter weight and considerably faster (though tbh, speed isn't that important for most people). It doesn't depend on…

So far, gnome-terminal is the only one* I've seen that can rewrap text properly when the window width changes. Does urxvt do that? Is there something lighter (than gnome-terminal) that does? * not the only one, but I'm not sure finalterm is really ready to use yet, and it's certainly not lightweight.

I just checked, and it seems to support rewrapping without any trouble. (Though, oddly enough, GNOME Terminal 2.31 doesn't.)

Re: Fish shell

#34
Seems like their slogan might be a little limiting.

> fish is a smart and user-friendly command line shell for OS X, Linux, and the rest of the family.

I'd wager majority of OSX users are not going to be changing shells, but by specifically enumerating OSX as the first example use, it feels like the others are mere afterthoughts.

Would be better put:

> fish is a smart and user-friendly command line shell for the entire *nix family.

Re: Fish shell

#35
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far, gnome-terminal is the only one* I've seen that can rewrap text properly when the window width changes. Does urxvt do that? Is there something lighter (than gnome-terminal) that does? * not the only one, but I'm not sure finalterm is really ready to use yet, and it's certainly not lightweight.

I just checked, and it seems to support rewrapping without any trouble. (Though, oddly enough, GNOME Terminal 2.31 doesn't.)

I'm on 3.14. Thank you, I will probably like that much better.

Edit: Hmm, it doesn't seem to work properly in 9.20. Well, I should probably be using tmux anyway, which does fix the problem.

Re: Fish shell

#36
post #15

Fish is great. For those wondering what advantages is has over zsh+ohmyzsh, I can say is that by default it provides most the functionality you want without having to install/tweak anything. Git support is built in (you get a nice git prompt) there's syntax highlighting, amazing history completion, predictive commands, man page completions... and so on. To try it on linux, just install fish and then run "fish", to ge…

That was precisely my first question, so thanks for the answer, but I don't really see how that's enough to switch… I've been using this "cleaned up/opinionated" fork 'Prezto' for a while now: https://github.com/sorin-ionescu/prezto

If I'm motivated enough to download and install a shell, why wouldn't I just clone Prezto and change one config file to turn on syntax highlighting and git support? Especially when it doesn't bring any "weirdness in command substitution" and I get the great zsh expansions and completions?

Anyways, I'll try it out (why not?) but the benefit to me wasn't clear from the page, and even with your direct clarification here I'm seeing more downsides than zsh + Prezto and not a significant upside.

Re: Fish shell

#38

I used to use fish, and emacs. But when I switched to vim, I had to switch away from fish as well because of its lack of vi bindings. It is a little disappointing to go back to using bash, but as long as bash-completion is working, it's not really a big issue. Of course, I do miss the syntax highlighting. (I would use zsh, but it provides little benefit over bash out of the box and is slower (oh-my-zsh is unbearably…

I run zsh barebones, and I've never been able to get some tab completions to work on bash as well as in zsh. But it's probably possible.

E.g. on some patterns involving *. Care to share your setup?

Re: Fish shell

#39
post #15

Fish is great. For those wondering what advantages is has over zsh+ohmyzsh, I can say is that by default it provides most the functionality you want without having to install/tweak anything. Git support is built in (you get a nice git prompt) there's syntax highlighting, amazing history completion, predictive commands, man page completions... and so on. To try it on linux, just install fish and then run "fish", to ge…

As someone who spends half of my workday in a shell, but doesn't often _code_ in shell, I find "it's not POSIX" to be the advantage.

Loop constructs and defining temporary functions in particular seem much more natural to my brain.

I used it as my main shell for about two years (on OSX even), but had to give it up due to a broken command-not-found handler (long story, but increased my quality of life with non-global bundler so much I went back to zsh).

Post reply on HN