21–30 of 37 posts
Somewhat related is "Oh My ZSH!" which is basically zsh on steroids, it's always one of the first things I install on a new computer. It gives things like new colors, themes, plugins, and more. Highly recommend you check it out. https://ohmyz.sh/
Do people script in zsh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> It's rare for bash to complete anything but filenames. zsh gives me subcommands and flags with descriptions. 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 name…
Take grep, for example. I only get --binary-files, --context, and --null. That's only three out of a few dozen options. Or tar, which only shows c, t, and x. For ls, probably the most frequently used command, only --color and --help. Git requires another third party completion framework. Unfortunately, those are the best case examples. For other commands like vim or emacs, option completion is missing. The same even goes for bash builtins. And don't get me started on completion behavior. Though I will say the lack of descriptions for each option takes away half the usefulness of shell completion.
zsh can actually use completion functions written for bash. But I never felt the need.
[pulling my tongue out of my cheek, I honestly never have found a reason to use anything other than bash -but that's just me]
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.
I have had someone sing the praises of zsh, tried it, was like "that isn't so much better than bash" and went back. Then I heard about oh-my-zsh, tried zsh with oh-my-zsh, and stayed. I still think it's not a big deal, but it is an improvement.
Then again, I don't do much with the shell per se (not writing scripts or any thing like that).
With bash and all of it's improvements over its' predecessors and rivals (csh), I'm not sure what need there is to throw resources at new shells such as zsh and fish etc? [pulling my tongue out of my cheek, I honestly never have found a reason to use anything other than bash -but that's just me]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve been using zsh for a while now and you just blew my mind!
Emacs' standard find-file function also does it, and I've since gotten so used to it that it's very irritating when I have to use a piece of software that doesn't complete like that.
Of course, I’ll never get back the time spent fiddling with my 1600 line Emacs configuration file.
Do people script in zsh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emacs' standard find-file function also does it, and I've since gotten so used to it that it's very irritating when I have to use a piece of software that doesn't complete like that.
There have been decades of work on file name completion put into Emacs, nothing I’ve seen comes close. Currently I’m using add on packages vertigo, orderless, marginalia, consult, embark, and corfu to handle completion. These packages all work together to produce a crazy good setup, but in the past I’ve used helm, ivy, icicle, and vanilla Emacs. Every one of these open source completion frameworks works great. Of cou…