3 ms·

What about fish? I use it on the terminal but still write my shell scripts in bash so they work across systems (including windows with minGW). I think a big iss

What about fish? I use it on the terminal but still write my shell scripts in bash so they work across systems (including windows with minGW). I think a big issue with new shell adoption is the prevalence of bash basically everywhere.

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
> I think a big issue with new shell adoption is the prevalence of bash basically everywhere. Which is better than the days when csh and different Bourne flavors were common.
djsumdog 10y ago
I've been using fish for over two years and love it. But the thing about fish is that is does totally break things that are expecting a sh/bash environment. There is more use out there and I've seen a number of shell tools/plugins include what to add to the fish config right under the bash and zsh sections (that's how I originally found out about fish). Fish does have bugs though. I've seen enough stack traces while running early builds to question the security (although I'm sure we all remember the bash shell-shcok bug that was laying around for years). If you haven't tried fish, I highly recommend it. It takes a little getting use to, but overall it adds a lot of really amazing functionality that I find really useful.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > If you haven't tried fish, I highly recommend it. It takes a little getting use to, but overall it adds a lot of really amazing functionality that I find really useful. Serious question (that I've asked elsethread): what does fish offer than zsh & bash lack? A quick perusal of the docs reveals nothing obvious, but … I could be missing stuff.
  - ash 10y ago
    Other people indeed chimed in on your question in other comments. But here's my take about the most important fish features: * Instant auto suggestions, you just type stuff, like in a web browser. * Sane defaults, no need to bring around your own config. On a new machine I just install fish, run fish_config and customize the prompt with the web UI. * Scripting with simple syntax, especially for one-liners. Yes, fish is incompatible with bash, but it's less of issue in this case.

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago

> I think a big issue with new shell adoption is the prevalence of bash basically everywhere. Which is better than the days when csh and different Bourne flavors were common.

djsumdog 10y ago

I've been using fish for over two years and love it. But the thing about fish is that is does totally break things that are expecting a sh/bash environment. There is more use out there and I've seen a number of shell tools/plugins include what to add to the fish config right under the bash and zsh sections (that's how I originally found out about fish). Fish does have bugs though. I've seen enough stack traces while running early builds to question the security (although I'm sure we all remember the bash shell-shcok bug that was laying around for years). If you haven't tried fish, I highly recommend it. It takes a little getting use to, but overall it adds a lot of really amazing functionality that I find really useful.

wtbob 10y ago
> If you haven't tried fish, I highly recommend it. It takes a little getting use to, but overall it adds a lot of really amazing functionality that I find really useful. Serious question (that I've asked elsethread): what does fish offer than zsh & bash lack? A quick perusal of the docs reveals nothing obvious, but … I could be missing stuff.
- ash 10y ago
  Other people indeed chimed in on your question in other comments. But here's my take about the most important fish features: * Instant auto suggestions, you just type stuff, like in a web browser. * Sane defaults, no need to bring around your own config. On a new machine I just install fish, run fish_config and customize the prompt with the web UI. * Scripting with simple syntax, especially for one-liners. Yes, fish is incompatible with bash, but it's less of issue in this case.