5 ms·

> Only more recently have I really realised this never applied to 99% of my (most people's?) use-cases. every time someone asks "how do i accomplish X task on

> Only more recently have I really realised this never applied to 99% of my (most people's?) use-cases. every time someone asks "how do i accomplish X task on the command line" (witness literally thousands of Stack Overflow posts like this) the answer is in bash. so, i say it applies to essentially every use case where you didn't already know how to do it. I love fish, but the fact that every answer to your questions is written in another language and has to be translated affects EVERYONE.

BeetleB 5y ago
> every time someone asks "how do i accomplish X task on the command line" (witness literally thousands of Stack Overflow posts like this) the answer is in bash. I don't get this argument: The solution is to search for: "how do i accomplish X task in fish" This is what I do with xonsh. Of course, the bigger point that is being missed is that when someone opts to use a shell like fish or xonsh, they're less likely to search how to do X! The reason they picked another shell is often because it is easier to use, etc. In the case of xonsh, it's mostly just Python. I do a lot more in it than I could do in bash, because I don't need to search the Internet for anything.
jkubicek 5y ago
I've been using Fish as my primary shell for years. The vast majority of the time those Stack Overflow answers written for Bash work as written in Fish with no changes. Occasionally you'll need to write the command substitution or command chaining in a different way, but once you get over the initial learning curve this is easy and pretty mechanical. Very rarely I find some command that just doesn't work in Fish, in those instances it's easy enough to open the bash shell or throw it into a script file.
lucideer 5y ago
> every time someone asks "how do i accomplish X task on the command line" (witness literally thousands of Stack Overflow posts like this) the answer is in bash. Those answers, imo, come in 3 forms: 1. Short simple bash commands that will work in fish 2. Overly clever "one-liners" that would be better as a script 3. Edge cases. (3) is rare enough that I don't see it as a big enough hurdle to avoid using fish.

BeetleB 5y ago

> every time someone asks "how do i accomplish X task on the command line" (witness literally thousands of Stack Overflow posts like this) the answer is in bash. I don't get this argument: The solution is to search for: "how do i accomplish X task in fish" This is what I do with xonsh. Of course, the bigger point that is being missed is that when someone opts to use a shell like fish or xonsh, they're less likely to search how to do X! The reason they picked another shell is often because it is easier to use, etc. In the case of xonsh, it's mostly just Python. I do a lot more in it than I could do in bash, because I don't need to search the Internet for anything.

jkubicek 5y ago

I've been using Fish as my primary shell for years. The vast majority of the time those Stack Overflow answers written for Bash work as written in Fish with no changes. Occasionally you'll need to write the command substitution or command chaining in a different way, but once you get over the initial learning curve this is easy and pretty mechanical. Very rarely I find some command that just doesn't work in Fish, in those instances it's easy enough to open the bash shell or throw it into a script file.

lucideer 5y ago

> every time someone asks "how do i accomplish X task on the command line" (witness literally thousands of Stack Overflow posts like this) the answer is in bash. Those answers, imo, come in 3 forms: 1. Short simple bash commands that will work in fish 2. Overly clever "one-liners" that would be better as a script 3. Edge cases. (3) is rare enough that I don't see it as a big enough hurdle to avoid using fish.