3 ms·

I use this in combination with fish shell and it's been working really well. I can just switch over to `nu` when the task merits; no need to replace my current

by arupy 5y ago

I use this in combination with fish shell and it's been working really well. I can just switch over to `nu` when the task merits; no need to replace my current shell. I can also just run a one-off line like this. nu -c "ls | where size > 10b"

augstein 5y ago
How does it compare to fish shell (especially fish’s great autocompletion), e.g. why are you not switching completely?
- arupy 5y ago
  nu is still in its infancy, and currently lacks critical features of other shells, which is why I haven’t switched completely. As for the future, perhaps a bit brazen, but I’m confident that other shells will introduce the core feature of nu in the near future to stay competitive. I can see fish having a “||” operator and rewrites of a few gnu functions to achieve what nu does natively.
xpe 5y ago
I see the value proposition of nushell. I'm wondering if I should also try fish. May I ask if you switched to fish from zsh? What motivated your change? Background: I invested some time not too long ago to read zsh docs in detail and customize my own configuration (e.g. instead of using oh-my-zsh). Since then, I've been quite happy with zsh. That said, I'm also open to switching to fish and/or nushell based on recommendations.
- sahkopoyta 5y ago
  > what motivated your change? didn't switch from zsh but bash, did it because wanted a bit more features at shell without additional configuration
- arupy 5y ago
  I didn’t switch from zsh, but from bash, to fish, primarily because bash was occasionally a bit clunky to use, and there were a lot of things that could be optimized in a modern environment. I settled on fish because it suited what I was looking for: an ergonomic shell that worked well out-of-the-box. Paired with strong community support, clean scripting syntax, and a wide ecosystem, it makes for a really enjoyable shell experience. I haven’t tried zsh, so I can’t compare the two. I’m happy with fish, and I don’t see much benefit to switching to nu. nu is exceptionally good at one thing: working with data, but lacks features in other areas (auto-completion, scripting, etc.). With time, I can see these features being implemented, but I think they’ll be re-inventing the wheel in a lot of areas that other shells are already good at.

by arupy 5y ago

augstein 5y ago

How does it compare to fish shell (especially fish’s great autocompletion), e.g. why are you not switching completely?

arupy 5y ago
nu is still in its infancy, and currently lacks critical features of other shells, which is why I haven’t switched completely. As for the future, perhaps a bit brazen, but I’m confident that other shells will introduce the core feature of nu in the near future to stay competitive. I can see fish having a “||” operator and rewrites of a few gnu functions to achieve what nu does natively.

xpe 5y ago

I see the value proposition of nushell. I'm wondering if I should also try fish. May I ask if you switched to fish from zsh? What motivated your change? Background: I invested some time not too long ago to read zsh docs in detail and customize my own configuration (e.g. instead of using oh-my-zsh). Since then, I've been quite happy with zsh. That said, I'm also open to switching to fish and/or nushell based on recommendations.

sahkopoyta 5y ago
> what motivated your change? didn't switch from zsh but bash, did it because wanted a bit more features at shell without additional configuration
arupy 5y ago
I didn’t switch from zsh, but from bash, to fish, primarily because bash was occasionally a bit clunky to use, and there were a lot of things that could be optimized in a modern environment. I settled on fish because it suited what I was looking for: an ergonomic shell that worked well out-of-the-box. Paired with strong community support, clean scripting syntax, and a wide ecosystem, it makes for a really enjoyable shell experience. I haven’t tried zsh, so I can’t compare the two. I’m happy with fish, and I don’t see much benefit to switching to nu. nu is exceptionally good at one thing: working with data, but lacks features in other areas (auto-completion, scripting, etc.). With time, I can see these features being implemented, but I think they’ll be re-inventing the wheel in a lot of areas that other shells are already good at.