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

Fish 3.4.0

fishshell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#81

Post by Sugimot0 »

I've been using fish for 2 years now and I pretty much live in the terminal. I would feel handicapped without it.

Just use fish and use shebangs `#!/bin/sh` (which should be in your scripts anyways) and you can keep writing/running POSIX scripts all day. I think it's the best option until nushell[0] is ready.

As an added bonus now that you don't use bash interactively you can substitute dash[1] and increase the speed of most POSIX scripts, win-win.

I'd also recommend zoxide[2], i feel like it's one more must have no matter what you do in the shell.

[0]: https://github.com/nushell/nushell [1]: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/dash/ [2]: https://github.com/ajeetdsouza/zoxide

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#82

Post by opan »

deagle50 wrote: post #58

Does anyone know how to disable the bright red color when you first start typing a word? I find it very distracting (specially on over-saturated wide gamut displays) and went back to zsh because of it.

Is that perhaps the syntax highlighting telling you that you haven't typed a valid command yet? I haven't used fish (I use zsh), but that's my guess. So, I guess try disabling syntax highlighting or changing colors related to it.

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#83

Post by injinj »

pmarreck wrote: post #78
kytazo wrote: post #9

Just loving every single bit of it since I switched to it. Had a couple of thoughts of migrating to zsh mostly because its more POSIX compliant but it doesn't look like such a valid argument as time passes by

I made the mistake last year of falling in love with xs-shell https://github.com/TieDyedDevil/XS , talking to its maintainer (who recently put xs out to pasture, as it were) who is now moving all his stuff to es-shell, switching my romance to es-shell https://wryun.github.io/es-shell/ , merging in 2 forks of it to my own version https://github.com/pmarreck/es-shell/ aaaand having a kid and basically running out of ti…

Yay, another es shell user!

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#84

Post by krobelus »

darrenf wrote: post #63
pkilgore wrote: post #5

Any other long-suffering bash user switched to fish and never looked back? Why? Have you switched and ended up coming back to bash? Why? - Long-suffering bash user

~30 year bash/sh user here (glossing over the regrettable, mercifully brief dalliances with csh and ksh). I can’t claim to be long suffering, because I (still) enjoy using bash. In December just gone I gave up on macOS after 17 years and switched to Linux. Thought I’d take the opportunity to try a new shell and went for fish (though I still use bash on certain remote hosts for a variety of reasons). autocomplete and…

> I don’t yet love how history works. Four months in, I still can’t get used to not having ctrl-r.

I think it's worth getting used to but there are plugins like fzf that implement ctrl-r

> `BROWSER=otherfunc aws sso login`

Aliases/functions are generally not visible in child processes. I guess it worked if the "aws" tool invoked BROWSER via a bash process that either sources aliases from a bashrc, or reads exported functions ("export -f otherfunc"). It would work for fish too if "aws" invoked BROWSER via fish (though fish doesn't need exporting, since functions are also loaded in non-interactive shells).

I recommend that you make otherfunc a script, then it will work everywhere (also with arbitrary wrappers like strace, gdb).

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#85

Post by [deleted] »

cpach wrote: post #69
Osiris wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did it also because with the old syntax it was unintuitive how to put commands inside quotes. It borrowed the new syntax from bash but it wasn't ONLY to be more bash compatible. It solved a real fish shell problem also.

Nitpick: The $(…) syntax was not invented by GNU, it was invented by Kenneth Almquist at the University of Washington. https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ash/#original

[deleted]

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#86

Post by pmarreck »

injinj wrote: post #83
pmarreck wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made the mistake last year of falling in love with xs-shell https://github.com/TieDyedDevil/XS , talking to its maintainer (who recently put xs out to pasture, as it were) who is now moving all his stuff to es-shell, switching my romance to es-shell https://wryun.github.io/es-shell/ , merging in 2 forks of it to my own version https://github.com/pmarreck/es-shell/ aaaand having a kid and basically running out of ti…

Yay, another es shell user!

All 10 of us should get together sometime!

Honestly, how does this shell not have more attention?!?!

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#87

Post by eddyg »

ducktective wrote: post #39
brimstedt wrote: post #13

Anyone know of a good comparison between the different shells?

Here is my TLDR: Writing scripts: #!/usr/bin/env bash (or #!/usr/bin/env sh for POSIX-compliance) Use fish for interactive shell. It's faster than zsh Zsh seem to have more plugins

In what ways is fish faster than zsh?

I can be believe it’s faster than a poorly configured zsh (which unfortunately is quite common), but would be curious to see actual test results, with things like “input lag”, “time to first prompt”, “command lag”, etc. like is measured with the excellent zsh-bench (https://github.com/romkatv/zsh-bench#what-it-measures)

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#88

Post by Tijdreiziger »

Trasmatta wrote: post #36
Tijdreiziger wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody on HN who's using this and wants to share their experience? It looks interesting, how does it compare against fish?

You can use it with fish. Here are a couple of previous threads on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18593015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23758138

I'll check out those threads, thanks!

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#89

Post by ducktective »

eddyg wrote: post #87
ducktective wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is my TLDR: Writing scripts: #!/usr/bin/env bash (or #!/usr/bin/env sh for POSIX-compliance) Use fish for interactive shell. It's faster than zsh Zsh seem to have more plugins

In what ways is fish faster than zsh? I can be believe it’s faster than a poorly configured zsh (which unfortunately is quite common), but would be curious to see actual test results, with things like “input lag”, “time to first prompt”, “command lag”, etc. like is measured with the excellent zsh-bench ( https://github.com/romkatv/zsh-bench#what-it-measures )

I've never tried zsh. I remember reading in the interwebz that if you go towards feature-parity with fish in a zsh setup, the latencies here and there, adds up and makes it slower than fish. Here is a relevant blog post: https://carlosbecker.com/posts/fish/

But yeah, I don't have any proofs.

Re: Fish 3.4.0

#90

Post by eddyg »

ducktective wrote: post #89
eddyg wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what ways is fish faster than zsh? I can be believe it’s faster than a poorly configured zsh (which unfortunately is quite common), but would be curious to see actual test results, with things like “input lag”, “time to first prompt”, “command lag”, etc. like is measured with the excellent zsh-bench ( https://github.com/romkatv/zsh-bench#what-it-measures )

I've never tried zsh. I remember reading in the interwebz that if you go towards feature-parity with fish in a zsh setup, the latencies here and there, adds up and makes it slower than fish. Here is a relevant blog post: https://carlosbecker.com/posts/fish/ But yeah, I don't have any proofs.

Yeah, that blog post is doing exactly what https://github.com/romkatv/zsh-bench#how-not-to-benchmark says not to do...
Post reply on HN