6 ms·
Check out Fish Shell.
by sorahn 8y ago
Check out Fish Shell.
- eikenberry 8y agoZsh can also do this.
- NegativeLatency 8y agoBut it needs plugins, fish has it builtin. Nothing to configure
- sorahn 8y agoYup this. If I wanted to carry around a bag of plugins all day, I'd just use bash.
- meowface 8y agoOn the plus side, by picking and choosing what you want, you can get the precise performance and usability ratio that fits you best. Fish is a great shell but nothing beats the zsh plugin ecosystem.
- NegativeLatency 8y agoOr in my case: spend a bunch of time messing with and tweaking my shell config. Sometimes the tyranny of default options is helpful to getting things done.
- rtisdale 8y agoI’ve tried fish shell a few times and ended up preferring ZSH. To my understanding Fish shell doesn’t have complete BASH compatibility and it breaks many scripts. It also doesn’t seem to have nearly as wide of an adoption as ZSH so less overall community support in genera. Sure you can just specify the interpreter with hash bang but it’s something worth noting before considering a switch.
- tomaskafka 8y agoThis. Just please don't be so dogmatic, Fish, it's ok to also allow && together with AND and not break my scripts ...
- kurtisc 8y agoBash itself breaks compatibility with POSIX sh. You can supply --posix, but you can also just use bash -c from fish.
- GordonS 8y agoDo you mean it just ships with support for a list of preset commands, or can it provide autocomplete for any command? (I have no idea how that could possibly work, mind)
- ubercow13 8y agoThe latter, to an extent; it parses man pages to provide completion/help for commands
- ivanfon 8y agoSure, but configuration is more powerful. I the shell a lot, I’m not going to choose a suboptimal solution for my use case just because of a little bit of configuration.