5 ms·

> The point of fish is that there is no configuration required. I think it would be more accurate to say that the point of fish is that there is no configurati

> The point of fish is that there is no configuration required. I think it would be more accurate to say that the point of fish is that there is no configuration allowed. If you don't like the out of the box configuration, I would say configuration is still required, but it's unfortunately not available. If you happen to like every single decision the developers made, then I admit having no configuration does mean you end up with a simpler, faster, more maintainable shell.

preseinger 5y ago
> If you don't like the out of the box configuration, Then either decide to like it -- humans are adaptable, this is possible -- or don't use the thing. Both outcomes are acceptable. A hammer doesn't need to have a configurable grip and head and claw in order to be a good tool.
- bscphil 5y ago
  Yes - that's exactly what I said. I'm not sure where you think you disagree. The point of fish is that configuration isn't allowed. I, personally, don't use it.
  - preseinger 5y ago
    I guess there isn't disagreement! :) Maybe the point is that you would say it's not allowed whereas I would say it's not necessary.
esyir 5y ago
I think this really shows the two schools of thought, and this is reflected in the attitude towards linux too. A: Linux is amazing, I can configure everything the exact way I want. B: Linux sucks, I need to mess around with configurations for hours before I get something usable. A lot of us just want something that works out of the box with amazing defaults. Others want something that can be tuned to their exact preferences. However, configurability comes with it's own costs too.
pxc 5y ago
Fish isn't that extreme. There's a fair bit of configuration allowed. The devs are just judicious about adding toggles. You can configure scripting to run at various times, and there are even plugin frameworks for Fish. It just doesn't have toggles for things like language features in the way that ZSH does.

preseinger 5y ago

> If you don't like the out of the box configuration, Then either decide to like it -- humans are adaptable, this is possible -- or don't use the thing. Both outcomes are acceptable. A hammer doesn't need to have a configurable grip and head and claw in order to be a good tool.

bscphil 5y ago
Yes - that's exactly what I said. I'm not sure where you think you disagree. The point of fish is that configuration isn't allowed. I, personally, don't use it.
- preseinger 5y ago
  I guess there isn't disagreement! :) Maybe the point is that you would say it's not allowed whereas I would say it's not necessary.

esyir 5y ago

I think this really shows the two schools of thought, and this is reflected in the attitude towards linux too. A: Linux is amazing, I can configure everything the exact way I want. B: Linux sucks, I need to mess around with configurations for hours before I get something usable. A lot of us just want something that works out of the box with amazing defaults. Others want something that can be tuned to their exact preferences. However, configurability comes with it's own costs too.

pxc 5y ago

Fish isn't that extreme. There's a fair bit of configuration allowed. The devs are just judicious about adding toggles. You can configure scripting to run at various times, and there are even plugin frameworks for Fish. It just doesn't have toggles for things like language features in the way that ZSH does.