I like Fish because I find it has sane defaults, i.e. {coloring, autosuggestions, completions} all work well out of the box with zero or little configuration.

I like Fish because I find it has sane defaults, i.e. {coloring, autosuggestions, completions} all work well out of the box with zero or little configuration. You can replicate a fish-like feeling in zsh (coloring, completions, etc), but for that you need a plugin manager, a million bajillion finicky plugins, and then configuration/performance hell [1] happens. I tried that, got bored of it, then learned to fish and never looked back at zsh. That being said, out of the interactive shell I don't like the exoticism of fish as a scripting language; I keep preferring shebanged, shellchecked [2], defensive [3] (ba)sh scripts, they're a stable and portable evil I know. Also, I'm curious what makes you feel "lack of customization in Fish": what can you customize in Zsh that you cannot in Fish? [1] https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-autosuggestions/issues/29 https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-autosuggestions/issues/29 , https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-autosuggestions/issues/22 https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-autosuggestions/issues/22 , https://github.com/robbyrussell/oh-my-zsh/issues/5569 https://github.com/robbyrussell/oh-my-zsh/issues/5569 , https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-autosuggestions/issues/102 https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-autosuggestions/issues/102 , https://github.com/robbyrussell/oh-my-zsh/issues/6338 https://github.com/robbyrussell/oh-my-zsh/issues/6338 . And yeah okay, most of these issues are about one specific plugin, and oh-my-zsh, which is known to be a terrible kitchen sink. Fair. But even then, I prefer fish's "batteries included" (and tested) approach to having to the alternative of doing all the mixing myself and dealing with weird plugins interactions :). [2] https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck [3] https://jvns.ca/blog/2017/03/26/bash-quirks/ https://jvns.ca/blog/2017/03/26/bash-quirks/