11–20 of 37 posts
I like the path completion in zsh, being able to type ' ~/.c/x/x ', hit tab and have it autocomplete to ' ~/.config/xsettingsd/xsettingsd.conf ' is a lot nicer than ` ~/.c ', tab, tab, add an 'o', tab again, 'x', tab, tab, 's', tab, tab.
I’ve been using zsh for a while now and you just blew my mind!
I like the path completion in zsh, being able to type ' ~/.c/x/x ', hit tab and have it autocomplete to ' ~/.config/xsettingsd/xsettingsd.conf ' is a lot nicer than ` ~/.c ', tab, tab, add an 'o', tab again, 'x', tab, tab, 's', tab, tab.
Needs a (1990) tag. It always amuses me when people, to this day, say "eh, not going to use that newfangled zsh, bash was good enough for my forefathers and is good enough for me" - not realizing zsh was released less than a year after bash.
I tried to give zsh a shot as a bash replacement but ultimately returned to bash. My main pain point was that zsh was really difficult to configure out of the box and a lot of the completions were much slower (cpu/wall time) than the equivalent completion in bash. I'm sure some of that was simply ignorance on my part.
I like the path completion in zsh, being able to type ' ~/.c/x/x ', hit tab and have it autocomplete to ' ~/.config/xsettingsd/xsettingsd.conf ' is a lot nicer than ` ~/.c ', tab, tab, add an 'o', tab again, 'x', tab, tab, 's', tab, tab.
I did not know about this, but I use https://github.com/wting/autojump, so I am not super sad that I missed something that hold me back severely. But good to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried to give zsh a shot as a bash replacement but ultimately returned to bash. My main pain point was that zsh was really difficult to configure out of the box and a lot of the completions were much slower (cpu/wall time) than the equivalent completion in bash. I'm sure some of that was simply ignorance on my part.
Bash improved a lot since the early 2000s, when I first assessed my options for shells and settled on zsh. As an interactive shell, zsh did more, and better, than any other shell I tried. Maybe it was slow, but not enough to matter at the time I used it. I guess that bash being the default practically everywhere nowadays made it so that it got a lot of love. For example, it is common to see command line tool come wit…
> For example, it is common to see command line tool come with bash completion files, less so with zsh.
It's rare for bash to complete anything but filenames. zsh gives me subcommands and flags with descriptions.
> Also, while bash got better support where it matters, zsh mostly got bloat in the form of oh-my-zsh and the likes.
zsh is a well-maintained project. It makes no sense to ignore that and instead fault them for oh-my-zsh's shortcomings, as if it has anything to do with upstream zsh. zsh doesn't rely on oh-my-zsh for any of its features.
I like the path completion in zsh, being able to type ' ~/.c/x/x ', hit tab and have it autocomplete to ' ~/.config/xsettingsd/xsettingsd.conf ' is a lot nicer than ` ~/.c ', tab, tab, add an 'o', tab again, 'x', tab, tab, 's', tab, tab.
I also use zsh for years and did not know that. What I like this: Actually having completions shown in the screen and being able to navigate them with tabs. I think that is not a default behavior, but that is what oh-my-zsh does for you in its default setup. Does someone have more insight on that? I did not know about this, but I use https://github.com/wting/autojump , so I am not super sad that I missed something th…
autoload -Uz compinit
compinit
zstyle ':completion:*' menu selectI like the path completion in zsh, being able to type ' ~/.c/x/x ', hit tab and have it autocomplete to ' ~/.config/xsettingsd/xsettingsd.conf ' is a lot nicer than ` ~/.c ', tab, tab, add an 'o', tab again, 'x', tab, tab, 's', tab, tab.
I like the path completion in zsh, being able to type ' ~/.c/x/x ', hit tab and have it autocomplete to ' ~/.config/xsettingsd/xsettingsd.conf ' is a lot nicer than ` ~/.c ', tab, tab, add an 'o', tab again, 'x', tab, tab, 's', tab, tab.
prog/libs/foo┃/src/CMakeList.txt Start with one path
prog/libs/some┃/src/CMakeList.txt Edit the middle part
prog/libs/somelongname/src/CMakeList.txt┃ Press tab, completes middle and jumps to end
git add aaa a┃
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bash improved a lot since the early 2000s, when I first assessed my options for shells and settled on zsh. As an interactive shell, zsh did more, and better, than any other shell I tried. Maybe it was slow, but not enough to matter at the time I used it. I guess that bash being the default practically everywhere nowadays made it so that it got a lot of love. For example, it is common to see command line tool come wit…
zsh has better completion, command line editing capabilities, and language features. It's not even close. I can port my bash configuration to zsh in mere minutes, but it's impossible to port my zsh configuration to bash. The reason is simple. Bash just lacks so many features. > For example, it is common to see command line tool come with bash completion files, less so with zsh. It's rare for bash to complete anything…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bash improved a lot since the early 2000s, when I first assessed my options for shells and settled on zsh. As an interactive shell, zsh did more, and better, than any other shell I tried. Maybe it was slow, but not enough to matter at the time I used it. I guess that bash being the default practically everywhere nowadays made it so that it got a lot of love. For example, it is common to see command line tool come wit…
zsh has better completion, command line editing capabilities, and language features. It's not even close. I can port my bash configuration to zsh in mere minutes, but it's impossible to port my zsh configuration to bash. The reason is simple. Bash just lacks so many features. > For example, it is common to see command line tool come with bash completion files, less so with zsh. It's rare for bash to complete anything…
I think that hasn't been true for a very long time, although it might be that I'm biased because I've been installing the "bash completion" package alongside bash on all my systems. (In my case "apt-get install bash-completion".)
bash typically completes commands, sub-commands, flags, and file/directory names for me. It is also common for new tools to ship with bash-completion support, often missing support for other shells.