5 ms·

Fun stuff! I keep recommending fish whenever I get the chance. It doesn't require any customization, has sane defaults, is simple to use, and provides a great

Fun stuff! I keep recommending fish whenever I get the chance. It doesn't require any customization, has sane defaults, is simple to use, and provides a great shell experience in general. Additionally, I don't have to google each time I want to write a for loop, because the syntax is "the obvious syntax you'd expect it to be" instead of what bash has. That's absolutely a legit advantage of it. If you didn't read into it, even though the issue looks like just a proposal in the first message, digging deeper it seems to be created by the top contributor, and is basically "happening". Looking forward to seeing how this pans out! Especially any lessons learned about Rust afterwards.

dmitrygr 4y ago
> Especially any lessons learned about Rust afterwards. So far the last few comments appear to be the bucket of cold water that all sane people would hope to see when someone proposes to rewrite $stable_thing (currently written in $stable_sane_common_language) in $new_latest_craze language for no reason - no distros ship recent rust toolchains, while C++ is "mature" and has toolchains that you can count on existing.
- cube2222 4y ago
  I've seen them. Let's see how they tackle those problems. I don't think fish, as a shell you're probably not using for checked-in scripts, needs too much backwards compat. I know it's a meme, and I don't enjoy Rust that much myself (though definitely more than cpp). At the same time the reasoning is sound, the average open source contributor imo will more likely contribute to a Rust project, rather than a cpp project. I support the whole thing even if it's just for the maintainers to have more fun maintaining the project (not that I'm suggesting this is the reason), after all they're the ones maintaining it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- saila 4y ago
  I don't think it's fair to say Rust is a "latest craze" language. Maybe five years ago, but not now. Numerous tools have been (re)written in it and supplanted old tools in at least some cases. Additionally, there are reasons given in the linked issue. I guess you could debate about whether they're good reasons (they sound reasonable to me), but you can't say they're proposing it for no reason just because you don't like or agree with the reasons. To that point, as someone who learned a decent amount of C and C++ a long time ago, I would probably never get involved in a C/C++ project nowadays, but I've been learning Rust these past few years and would definitely get involved in a Rust project if I had the chance. And to be clear, I'm not bashing C/C++ at all. They're venerable and appreciated, but I have little to no interest in working with them, and it seems to me that this is a fairly common sentiment.
  - dmitrygr 4y ago
    > Maybe five years ago, but not now. A language stops being "new" when debian stable's previous release supports it as fully as Arch's current beta.
    - Macha 4y ago
      Here you go: https://packages.debian.org/buster/rust/ https://packages.debian.org/buster/rust/
      - dmitrygr 4y ago
        Yes..those are antique. Last I asked anyone writing rust "for fun" - the answer I got was "latest compiler/features/shiny or GTFO", so rust 1.0 will likely get you LESS free labour from randoms online than C++ would That's the point... Compare to C89 code that will happily build on any C compiler of any vintage on any system you dig up anywhere, even those that are big endian, have non-8-bit bytes, or are not 2s complement.
        loeg 4y ago
        Modern C requires 2’s complement signed integers.
- jbaber 4y ago
  Try splitting a string on a delimeter in C++. Now that I'm fluent in both languages, I find myself constantly irritated by how comparatively uphill simple things can be in C++. I'm always reaching for boost, waiting for 2017, or just writing a function by hand that was a programming example in the 60's and has been in Python for decades.
- zanchey 4y ago
  If you want to write C++03, that's true, but as a maintainer of the fish build system I was having to backport compilers in order to use C++11 features on supported systems until 2020. Modern C++ is still a moving target and newer versions contain a number of features that make it much more pleasant to work with, but it takes decades to percolate into distributions.

dmitrygr 4y ago

> Especially any lessons learned about Rust afterwards. So far the last few comments appear to be the bucket of cold water that all sane people would hope to see when someone proposes to rewrite $stable_thing (currently written in $stable_sane_common_language) in $new_latest_craze language for no reason - no distros ship recent rust toolchains, while C++ is "mature" and has toolchains that you can count on existing.

cube2222 4y ago
I've seen them. Let's see how they tackle those problems. I don't think fish, as a shell you're probably not using for checked-in scripts, needs too much backwards compat. I know it's a meme, and I don't enjoy Rust that much myself (though definitely more than cpp). At the same time the reasoning is sound, the average open source contributor imo will more likely contribute to a Rust project, rather than a cpp project. I support the whole thing even if it's just for the maintainers to have more fun maintaining the project (not that I'm suggesting this is the reason), after all they're the ones maintaining it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
saila 4y ago
I don't think it's fair to say Rust is a "latest craze" language. Maybe five years ago, but not now. Numerous tools have been (re)written in it and supplanted old tools in at least some cases. Additionally, there are reasons given in the linked issue. I guess you could debate about whether they're good reasons (they sound reasonable to me), but you can't say they're proposing it for no reason just because you don't like or agree with the reasons. To that point, as someone who learned a decent amount of C and C++ a long time ago, I would probably never get involved in a C/C++ project nowadays, but I've been learning Rust these past few years and would definitely get involved in a Rust project if I had the chance. And to be clear, I'm not bashing C/C++ at all. They're venerable and appreciated, but I have little to no interest in working with them, and it seems to me that this is a fairly common sentiment.
- dmitrygr 4y ago
  > Maybe five years ago, but not now. A language stops being "new" when debian stable's previous release supports it as fully as Arch's current beta.
  - Macha 4y ago
    Here you go: https://packages.debian.org/buster/rust/ https://packages.debian.org/buster/rust/
    - dmitrygr 4y ago
      Yes..those are antique. Last I asked anyone writing rust "for fun" - the answer I got was "latest compiler/features/shiny or GTFO", so rust 1.0 will likely get you LESS free labour from randoms online than C++ would That's the point... Compare to C89 code that will happily build on any C compiler of any vintage on any system you dig up anywhere, even those that are big endian, have non-8-bit bytes, or are not 2s complement.
      - loeg 4y ago
        Modern C requires 2’s complement signed integers.
jbaber 4y ago
Try splitting a string on a delimeter in C++. Now that I'm fluent in both languages, I find myself constantly irritated by how comparatively uphill simple things can be in C++. I'm always reaching for boost, waiting for 2017, or just writing a function by hand that was a programming example in the 60's and has been in Python for decades.
zanchey 4y ago
If you want to write C++03, that's true, but as a maintainer of the fish build system I was having to backport compilers in order to use C++11 features on supported systems until 2020. Modern C++ is still a moving target and newer versions contain a number of features that make it much more pleasant to work with, but it takes decades to percolate into distributions.