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

Fish shell

fishshell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 188 posts

Re: Fish shell

#71

Post by eridius »

nilved wrote: post #65
eridius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a software system that relies on bash not explicitly use bash for its scripts?

Bad developers. For example, I used Arch Linux for a number of years, where `/bin/sh` is a symlink to bash. Switching that to point to `dash` broke a number of programs both in the official repositories and the AUR. A lot of shell scripters can't spot a bashism, and just as many don't know that other shell syntax even exists.

That's a different problem, though. /bin/sh must point to a sh-compatible shell. fish is not a sh-compatible shell. Therefore, any script using /bin/sh will never attempt to run as fish (as /bin/sh will never point to fish).

The reason I'm having a hard time imagining how a scripting system that relies on bash would fail with fish is because I can't imagine how one would actually write a script that is executed with the user's login shell. There's no #! line that would do that by accident.

Re: Fish shell

#72

Post by pragone »

0942v8653 wrote: post #25

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…

Someone's gotta explain to me how and why oh-my-zsh is slow. I've never once experienced it being slow for me. In fact, I switched to prezto and it was unbelievably slow. I switched back to oh-my-zsh. Maybe I'm just not using it right...

Re: Fish shell

#73

Post by tomphoolery »

0942v8653 wrote: post #25

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…

ZSH only gets slow because of the customizations, which would be true in Bash as well. Both shells are relatively comparable, though there are still a few things you can do in ZSH that you can't do in Bash. If you keep your customizations relatively light-weight and don't iterate over too many files on each login session, you'll probably be OK.

I wrote a framework to help deal with the shell a little bit after getting fed up with OMZ's slowness: https://github.com/tubbo/homer

Re: Fish shell

#74

Post by mbq »

saidajigumi wrote: post #59
donatj wrote: post #14

Fish not being bash compliant was a deal breaker for me. I use zsh with https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting zsh fish like syntax hilighting and am much more happy.

> Fish not being bash compliant was a deal breaker for me. Would you mind elaborating here? I'm very honestly curious how the deal gets broken for you. To explain my curiosity, I've long since come to the opinion that we're in the midst of a long, somewhat painful split caused by a design dissonance over improving the interactive shell UX versus creating a better environment for scripting. We've been building alterna…

When used as a login shell, shell is expected to source some init scripts to fix PATH, locale and stuff; if a particular distro is not written with alternative shells in mind this will fail, esentially making you use two shells which is cumbersome enough to be a deal breaker.

Re: Fish shell

#75

Post by jordanpg »

I'll switch to one of these new-fangled shells if I ever master bash.

In any case, bash -- in one of its many forms, colors, and sizes -- is what I usually find myself in front of.

Re: Fish shell

#76

Post by tomphoolery »

pragone wrote: post #72
0942v8653 wrote: post #25

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…

Someone's gotta explain to me how and why oh-my-zsh is slow. I've never once experienced it being slow for me. In fact, I switched to prezto and it was unbelievably slow. I switched back to oh-my-zsh. Maybe I'm just not using it right...

OMZ got painfully slow for me when I used it with a lot of plugins and it was iterating over a lot of different file paths. It seems like ZSH has an issue when you're loading a mass amount of files...or maybe it's just the way OMZ is loading them?

Re: Fish shell

#77

Post by [deleted] »

jordanpg wrote: post #75

I'll switch to one of these new-fangled shells if I ever master bash. In any case, bash -- in one of its many forms, colors, and sizes -- is what I usually find myself in front of.

[deleted]

Re: Fish shell

#78

Post by shirro »

I tried really hard to use Fish for awhile and if the shell was just history, completion and sane defaults (and it is for some people) it would have a very good case. But not being even remotely compatible with bash drove me nuts as the shell is my REPL.

Re: Fish shell

#79

Post by belovedeagle »

ori_b wrote: post #19
donatj wrote: post #14

Fish not being bash compliant was a deal breaker for me. I use zsh with https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting zsh fish like syntax hilighting and am much more happy.

The problem is that bash syntax for anything beyond the basics is awful and error prone. It's really hard to make significant progress while still being bash compliant.

I don't know specifically what you're referring to, but zsh has a bunch of extensions to bash syntax (or rather, takes advantage of a lot of "empty space" in the language) which make it possible to just ignore the bashisms and use more sane features when scripting specifically for zsh, while still being able to trivially convert scripts with most bashisms.

Re: Fish shell

#80

Post by mturmon »

Alupis wrote: post #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 enti…

The lead developer is on the Apple AppKit team.
Post reply on HN