61–70 of 73 posts
How does it compare to zsh (more specialy the package o-my-zsh)? The only thing that catch my eyes was the shell command being completed automatically in grey in the background. That will be great to have this in zsh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My main gripe with 'BASH scripts' is that in most cases they could simply be 'Shell scripts' and in most cases they call and require Bash for no reason at all ;)
I guess most people cannot be bothered to remember which features are bash specific and which will work in any /bin/sh. I don't think there is such a thing as a generic "shell script", csh has completely different syntax.
Lots of people target bash without knowing that some of its non-posix features are not compatible across even minor versions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CDPATH is not a very good bookmarking system, as you can't bookmark several directories that have the same name, and you are forced to bookmark all the siblings of the item you wish to bookmark, which can be a problem with flat hierarchies. So if bookmarking directories is the goal, CDPATH might not be the best way. And one off bookmarking functions are easy to write. Admittedly for the description given, it does sou…
I simplified the example, cdc does more than just a change the directory. `cdc -t name` changes to the directory and attaches to the tmux session of the same name if it exists, and if it doesn't, sets up my tmux layout for development.
$ export cdc_stuff='/Users/me/src/project_stuff'
$ cd $cdc_stuff
in the event you're looking for alternatives, perhaps porting your code to (e.g.) ruby could work.
just in case, here's the isbn number of a book called, 'Build Awesome Command-Line Applications in Ruby 2,' from the pragmatic bookshelf: 978-1-93778-575-8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have several bash functions that need to be sourced to be included. For instance, I use `cdc` to change to my code directory, where I keep my source for projects I am working on. If I type `cdc name` it changes it to my projects source directory, save me a lot of keystrokes in a day as I have many that I flip between. This sourcing of a function is required due to the way cd is handled, and in it's current form, no…
Alternatively, you may want to look into z. https://github.com/rupa/z (bash, zsh) https://github.com/sjl/z-fish
How does it compare to zsh (more specialy the package o-my-zsh)? The only thing that catch my eyes was the shell command being completed automatically in grey in the background. That will be great to have this in zsh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> its not compatible with BASH's shell scripting, which means you often cant just run shell scripts written by others, you may have to reformat it a little first. What exactly do you mean by “Shell scripts”? If the script contains a proper Shebang you can easily run it via `./script.sh`. If not you use: `bash ./script.sh`.
I have several bash functions that need to be sourced to be included. For instance, I use `cdc` to change to my code directory, where I keep my source for projects I am working on. If I type `cdc name` it changes it to my projects source directory, save me a lot of keystrokes in a day as I have many that I flip between. This sourcing of a function is required due to the way cd is handled, and in it's current form, no…
0: https://github.com/huyng/bashmarks 1: https://github.com/techwizrd/fishmarks
How does it compare to zsh (more specialy the package o-my-zsh)? The only thing that catch my eyes was the shell command being completed automatically in grey in the background. That will be great to have this in zsh.
That's right. Auto completion is really cool. I wish zsh and bash have it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was being sarcastic, but I don't really like the idea of my shell having a built-in web server even if it's just a few lines of code - feels like a Rube Goldberg machine. You can do nice TUIs in the console as well, even with graphics, but it's not necessary in this case. Configuration files are just fine for nearly 100% of the people who use Fish.
You may feel better to know that the web server is not part of the shell itself. It's a separate Python script that does its work by invoking fish and sending it commands. Its source is here: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/blob/master/share/t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may feel better to know that the web server is not part of the shell itself. It's a separate Python script that does its work by invoking fish and sending it commands. Its source is here: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/blob/master/share/t...
You guys keep beating around the bush and keep downvoting me! Is the web server built-in? Yes, it is. Why do you keep finding excuses and why do you keep downvoting the voice of reasons - a shell should not have a web server in its codebase, period. Put this into an optional package and make everybody happy!
Some people do find the web interface useful, otherwise it wouldn't be there. On the other hand, you are not providing any reasons why a web server is harmful, why would anybody listen to you as the voice of reason, if your axiom is "a shell should not have a web server in its codebase, period"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He probably means that it's not backwards compatible with bash, so you have to make it a fish script to run it as fish script.
But do you need to? Just write it for bash and run it from fish the same way you run python scripts from bash.
What I meant in my comment above is a lot of 'download an install' instructions in tutorials, and sometimes installation wizards for programs are written for bash, and can't be run without modification in Fish. Not a major setback, but for a Bash user it would just work.