Is there a way to use this in the excellent Git Bash for Windows? Because Git Bash is amazing and I don't see myself going back to cygwin anytime soon. I understand how they could be very incompatible because of the way Git Bash is built.
Fish shell
81–90 of 188 posts
Re: Fish shell
#822.2 beta 1 was released last week. Testers welcome!
Has the bug with removing autoloaded functions been fixed yet?
Re: Fish shell
#832.2 beta 1 was released last week. Testers welcome!
When is 2.2 planned?
Re: Fish shell
#84Fish 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.
Same for me... When I saw that I was going to lose all my scripts in .bash_profile and .bashrc that was a no-no. I've got plenty of custom stuff there, so instead I just installed fish completion and several of its functionalities in oh-my-zsh and... ready to go!
Re: Fish shell
#85Their shitty webpage still requires javascript, though!
Re: Fish shell
#86Looks interesting and great timing. I got super annoyed today when I saw that the latest version of gnome terminal in Ubuntu stopped supporting changing tab titles via the GUI.
xfce4-terminal is a good choice. I like that it has an additional feature to gnome-term, in that it can highlight the text of a tab when it outputs text. It is nice that you'll know when to check up on long-running tasks.
Re: Fish shell
#87Fish is definitely good, but not great enough to justify a switch from Bash. I maintain tens of thousands of lines of Bash scripts and was considering switching to Fish once, but decided it wasn't worth it. When you compare the *nix shells to PowerShell, they feel prehistoric. We all use grep, sed, awk, and the likes, but don't you get tired of having to deal with unstructured data and gross limitations of the shell…
Using fish doesn't mean you have to stop using existing bash scripts.
Re: Fish shell
#88>Sane Scripting -- fish is fully scriptable, and its syntax is simple, clean, and consistent. You'll never write esac again.
I can already do sane scripting, with Python. I suspect that as soon as I try to to anything slightly complicated, Python leaves fish scripting behind.
Re: Fish shell
#89Their shitty webpage still requires javascript, though!
and this is 2015, why are people still against JS?
Re: Fish shell
#90I've been using fish for at least a year now and I absolutely love it, altogether with oh-my-fish [0].
I don't mind the incompatibility to bash, but using "; and" instead of "&&" is a little annoying.
Everything else is great.
It actually auto-completes remote hosts and paths when you type ssh or scp commands! It also fuzzy-completes filenames when you're lazy (or have typos in them) and a bunch of other neat things.
The up-key function after typing in parts of a command and ^F have probably saved me hours of time wasted in bash.