5 ms·
I've been using Fish instead and it's much much simpler than configuring ZSH to my liking. It's already good out of the box, without having to carry around any
by qalmakka 6y ago
I've been using Fish instead and it's much much simpler than configuring ZSH to my liking. It's already good out of the box, without having to carry around any kind of configuration. The only stuff I usually do is to setup `powerline-go` as prompt, and voilà, that's pretty much it.
- Jasp3r 6y agoThe main drawback for fish is that is not compatible with bash scripting. If you need help with something specific, you can throw out almost all help available online.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kristopolous 6y agoI've been thinking about a more fluid way to hybridize these different shells. I'd like a way to get all the benefits without the cost or any extra required effort for the user. Some painless master shell program. No epiphanies yet though.
- RealStickman_ 6y agoI just have both installed. Fish for interacting and bash for scripting.
- oblio 6y agoI can never understand this complaint. I'm frequently on Windows and use Cygwin. Do you know what I do? I use zsh. Let's say I need bash. "bash<Enter>". I'm in bash :-) I need cmd (yup, that can happen). "cmd<Enter>". I need to run just one command with bash: "bash command<Enter>". I need to run just one command with cmd: "cmd /c command<Enter>". These problems are trivially solvable :-)
- mattgreenrocks 6y agoSwitched to fish for daily use a year ago and have only had to fallback to bash maybe 3-4 times for a gnarly command invocation that was bash only.
- dlkmp 6y agoI am a happy Fish user, too. The first downside that comes to my head is that if you want to share a script you wrote that you have to translate it to bash first. Much less of an issue if you're using zsh.
- JNRowe 6y agoI'm a zsh user, and I disagree on it not being much of an issue. It is very easy to inadvertently rely on all manner of zsh-specific behaviour in scripts. Short form logic syntax, builtins with different arguments, internal stat/attr/datetime/etc manipulation, my personal favourite $RANDOM behaves differently to bash in subshells, and much more. zsh does have the emulate builtin available to help with some basic things, but it is still easy to produce scripts littered with zsh'isms. However, I do use zsh for personal scripts. In fact, I go so heavy on zsh'isms I know I'd need to rewrite things to share them if non-zsh users are an issue. It is easier to keep track of things that way, instead of tripping over the little easily forgotten quirks.
- theshrike79 6y agoI just write my scripts in bash or python, depending on the use case. Aliases and macros are fish script though.
- richeyryan 6y agoI rather liked Fish's zero config approach but I found their handling of the PATH very hard to work with day to day. Perhaps it was just my familiarity with having a bunch of statements to alter the PATH in a config file but it felt very opaque, I always had to look up how to add stuff to the PATH and I had great trouble trying to remove stuff from the PATH.
- qmmmur 6y agoIt's easy once you understand universal global and local variables.
- mattgreenrocks 6y agoThat is a valid issue. Should be remedied in an upcoming release.
- richeyryan 6y agoOh wow that's great to hear. Do you have any resources I could reference? A Github issue discussing the intended solution or something?
- mattgreenrocks 6y agohttps://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/pull/7028 https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/pull/7028
- gpanders 6y agoI LOVE the way fish handles PATH. I just modify the $fish_user_paths variable (which is a universal variable) and I don’t have to modify any config files. E.g. to permanently add `~/.cargo/bin/` to your PATH just do set fish_user_paths $fish_user_paths ~/.cargo/bin once from an interactive shell, and you’re done!
- theshrike79 6y agoSame, I use starship[1] as my prompt, it's easy to install and has sane defaults. [1] https://github.com/starship/starship https://github.com/starship/starship