5 ms·

Been meaning to move fully to Fish, was just dreading the amount of zsh functions I'd have to rewrite. Is there any reason to use Zsh at this point over Fish?

by nikivi 4y ago

cmer 4y ago
I was in a similar situation 2 years ago and I took the plunge. Turns out, the amount I had to rewrite was fairly minimal, and the benefits of Fish are just incredible. I'd say: go for it, you won't regret it!
smoldesu 4y ago
zsh tends to actually run scripts when you feed them. As long as you can resist the urge to run all of your POSIX scripts in fish, I think I much prefer fish as an interactive shell.
- cmer 4y ago
  Exactly. Falling back to Bash to run scripts makes life easier. Just add a Bash shebang at the top and you're good to go.
moondev 4y ago
process substitution? fish: Invalid redirection target: yq3 r <(kubectl get nodes -o yaml)
- Tmpod 4y ago
  You can do process substitution by piping into the psub command ;)
  - moondev 4y ago
    juice is not worth the squeeze
    - inyourtenement 4y ago
      <(blah) vs (blah | psub)
medler 4y ago
I used fish for a long time, but lost patience with the incompatibility with other shells. It’s nice to be able to just paste and run someone else’s command, and I eventually tired of having to rewrite every command to use fish syntax. For example, replacing FOO= with set - x … The reverse is even worse—if I need to send someone a command to run, I have to rewrite it in a syntax that’s likely to work when they run it. It only takes a few seconds each time but I grew weary of it.
- Starlevel001 4y ago
  You can just do `bash -c "CMD"`.
  - tomjakubowski 4y ago
    occasionally you'll need to run a command which sources or exports… it's no silver bullet in my experience anyway
    - pxc 4y ago
      Check out fish-foreign-env, bass, and babelfish
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  That’s accepted now, and was always available by prepending env.
- ducktective 4y ago
  create a key-binding to invoke your terminal with bash. I have not set fish as my system shell (aka chsh)
- ilaksh 4y ago
  They have improved compatibility a lot. Also, you could do what I do: leave bash or something else as the default, and then just run fish manually. Then if I have a problem pasting or something I run type exit. But the incompatibilities are a lot less now.
CJefferson 4y ago
Personally, I'm a lover of subshells, I often write things like (cd mydir && make), making use of the fact the 'cd mydir' only happens in the subshell. Fish doesn't have anything like that, there are a few workaround, but none of them are (in my opinion) anywhere near as nice.
- 8ytecoder 4y ago
  I use this a lot in my scripts - handy when you want to capture the output or execute a command in a different directory.
  - lytedev 4y ago
    set output (echo captured) echo $output > captured And if you wanna run a command in another dir: pushd other_dir run_command popd
- onei 4y ago
  If it's just make you're doing that for "make -C mydir" does that and puts you back in the original directory when it's done.
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  I do this too (in zsh), but maybe writing a function callable like this would work: with mydir make Although you'd want to be able to write things like with mydir make && ./bin/myprog and parse everything to the right of `mydir' as a shell pipeline. That might be the sticking point in fish.
- lytedev 4y ago
  You should instead pushd /my/path && command && popd Both in bash AND in fish!
  - CJefferson 4y ago
    the problem with that is I ended up in the wrong directory if I press ctrl+c, or in the exact examples you give, if command fails.
agency 4y ago
Last time I looked into switching the vim mode in zsh was better by enough of a margin that I didn't switch, but that was years ago. I've been meaning to give fish another shot.
tomjakubowski 4y ago
zsh has survived for longer (it's "Lindy") and is therefore more widely available on remote machines. Also, maybe just my problem, but I do get frustrated having to switch back to bash/zsh syntax and semantics in cases where Fish isn't available, or when writing scripts others will use. Easier for me to stick with zsh for my shell and bash for shipping shell scripts.
axkdev 4y ago
You can 1. Make your scripts executable or 2. Use bash / zsh inside of fish. 3. You can define wrapper functions in fish that just call bash/zsh functions internally. I use fish, although I hate writing scripts in it. It just feels wrong. Better stick to good old bash.
- pxc 4y ago
  For copying and pasting while preserving environments, you can always use `exec` as an escape hatch. exec bash <paste some bash> exec fish

Been meaning to move fully to Fish, was just dreading the amount of zsh functions I'd have to rewrite. Is there any reason to use Zsh at this point over Fish?

by nikivi 4y ago

Been meaning to move fully to Fish, was just dreading the amount of zsh functions I'd have to rewrite. Is there any reason to use Zsh at this point over Fish?

cmer 4y ago

I was in a similar situation 2 years ago and I took the plunge. Turns out, the amount I had to rewrite was fairly minimal, and the benefits of Fish are just incredible. I'd say: go for it, you won't regret it!

smoldesu 4y ago

zsh tends to actually run scripts when you feed them. As long as you can resist the urge to run all of your POSIX scripts in fish, I think I much prefer fish as an interactive shell.

cmer 4y ago
Exactly. Falling back to Bash to run scripts makes life easier. Just add a Bash shebang at the top and you're good to go.

moondev 4y ago

process substitution? fish: Invalid redirection target: yq3 r <(kubectl get nodes -o yaml)

Tmpod 4y ago
You can do process substitution by piping into the psub command ;)
- moondev 4y ago
  juice is not worth the squeeze
  - inyourtenement 4y ago
    <(blah) vs (blah | psub)

medler 4y ago

I used fish for a long time, but lost patience with the incompatibility with other shells. It’s nice to be able to just paste and run someone else’s command, and I eventually tired of having to rewrite every command to use fish syntax. For example, replacing FOO= with set - x … The reverse is even worse—if I need to send someone a command to run, I have to rewrite it in a syntax that’s likely to work when they run it. It only takes a few seconds each time but I grew weary of it.

Starlevel001 4y ago
You can just do `bash -c "CMD"`.
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  occasionally you'll need to run a command which sources or exports… it's no silver bullet in my experience anyway
  - pxc 4y ago
    Check out fish-foreign-env, bass, and babelfish
mixmastamyk 4y ago
That’s accepted now, and was always available by prepending env.
ducktective 4y ago
create a key-binding to invoke your terminal with bash. I have not set fish as my system shell (aka chsh)
ilaksh 4y ago
They have improved compatibility a lot. Also, you could do what I do: leave bash or something else as the default, and then just run fish manually. Then if I have a problem pasting or something I run type exit. But the incompatibilities are a lot less now.

CJefferson 4y ago

Personally, I'm a lover of subshells, I often write things like (cd mydir && make), making use of the fact the 'cd mydir' only happens in the subshell. Fish doesn't have anything like that, there are a few workaround, but none of them are (in my opinion) anywhere near as nice.

8ytecoder 4y ago
I use this a lot in my scripts - handy when you want to capture the output or execute a command in a different directory.
- lytedev 4y ago
  set output (echo captured) echo $output > captured And if you wanna run a command in another dir: pushd other_dir run_command popd
onei 4y ago
If it's just make you're doing that for "make -C mydir" does that and puts you back in the original directory when it's done.
tomjakubowski 4y ago
I do this too (in zsh), but maybe writing a function callable like this would work: with mydir make Although you'd want to be able to write things like with mydir make && ./bin/myprog and parse everything to the right of `mydir' as a shell pipeline. That might be the sticking point in fish.
lytedev 4y ago
You should instead pushd /my/path && command && popd Both in bash AND in fish!
- CJefferson 4y ago
  the problem with that is I ended up in the wrong directory if I press ctrl+c, or in the exact examples you give, if command fails.

agency 4y ago

Last time I looked into switching the vim mode in zsh was better by enough of a margin that I didn't switch, but that was years ago. I've been meaning to give fish another shot.

tomjakubowski 4y ago

zsh has survived for longer (it's "Lindy") and is therefore more widely available on remote machines. Also, maybe just my problem, but I do get frustrated having to switch back to bash/zsh syntax and semantics in cases where Fish isn't available, or when writing scripts others will use. Easier for me to stick with zsh for my shell and bash for shipping shell scripts.

axkdev 4y ago

You can 1. Make your scripts executable or 2. Use bash / zsh inside of fish. 3. You can define wrapper functions in fish that just call bash/zsh functions internally. I use fish, although I hate writing scripts in it. It just feels wrong. Better stick to good old bash.

pxc 4y ago
For copying and pasting while preserving environments, you can always use `exec` as an escape hatch. exec bash <paste some bash> exec fish