5 ms·
I really love fish and used it daily for many years. Then I started work at a new company that had an existing library of internal shell tools that weren't comp
by ciguy 4y ago
I really love fish and used it daily for many years. Then I started work at a new company that had an existing library of internal shell tools that weren't compatible with Fish and the effort to port them was too much.
I found that ZSH managed with OhMyZSH plugins gets me similar functionality without the syntax incompatibilities. Unfortunately unless Fish moves back towards compatibility I don't see myself ever going back, it's just too much hassle dealing with little syntax issues all the time.
- latenightcoding 4y agoSame here, fish is amazing until is isn't. I really wish it was POSIX
- db65edfc7996 4y agoDitching some of the POSIX missteps is half the appeal of fish.
- enkrs 4y agoI’m an avid bash user for the same fear of incompatibility. But how does that work in practice? I mean- if I use Fish shell interactiveley, how does that affect shell scripts? I presume they would still be run via bash (#!/bin/bash)
- saila 4y agoEvery script should have a #! line, but if it doesn't, you can always run it with `bash <script>`.
- Tyr42 4y agoCould be "add source /blah blah" to your bashrc, and this adds some shell functions (which allow it to do stuff like cd).
- mhink 4y agoExecuting programs (including scripts, which are indicated by shebangs like #! /bin/bash) is the operating system's responsibility, not the shell's. So yeah, shell scripts work exactly the same if you're running them as an executable. Some scripts, however, (like for instance .bashrc) are intended to be sourced by the shell rather than invoked as an independent executable. These won't work, and will need to be ported.
- ilaksh 4y agoWhy did you need to port them? The occasional simple shell script I write in bash. You can just use fish interactively.