3 ms·
I tried to use fish for a while and ended up giving up and going back to bash, mostly for one (somewhat irrational) reason: fish kept recognizing bash-isms and
by thenewwazoo 6y ago
I tried to use fish for a while and ended up giving up and going back to bash, mostly for one (somewhat irrational) reason: fish kept recognizing bash-isms and yelling at me about it.
Clearly there's a code path to recognize the thing, so why not just do it? It already knows what I want, why post a message instead? Either interpret it, or don't.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tempay 6y agoIn the latest major version they've actually changed most of these so it's worth another try if you're so inclined.
- daveidol 6y agoI get the sentiment, but not sure I agree with the "either interpret it, or don't" part - it sounds like you are essentially saying the scripting should either match Bash completely (and thus lose out on the more modern syntax) or not offer any kind of helpful error to users. Or perhaps support both types of syntax? Personally I think it's fine to help guide new users to the new syntax without directly supporting it - this keeps Fish scripts from all devolving into the (subjectively ugly) bash format. It's like a graceful deprecation warning. Edit: although I do think ceding on the logical operators (&&, ||) was a good move since that one is so fundamental
- rovr138 6y agoThey try to point you in the right direction but aren’t making assumptions that it’s right. What happens if you loose data because of a wrong assumption?