3 ms·
TLDR: Fish throws out old stuff (sh compatibility, mostly) in order to be very user friendly (at least to users who aren't used to sh), and is very good at doin
by yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
TLDR: Fish throws out old stuff (sh compatibility, mostly) in order to be very user friendly (at least to users who aren't used to sh), and is very good at doing so.
(Written as a user who is very accustomed to sh and gave up after trying fish briefly)
- stouset 3y agoAs a counterpoint, after 15 years of being proficient in bash, the second I tried fish I never looked back. There are a few minor differences in scripting that I had to figure out when I ran into them (while/if syntax, process substitution, some other minor things), but these were small enough that it didn’t matter. I’ve had multiple coworkers with a similar experience.
- jrpelkonen 3y agoI switched to fish a few years ago as well. Great productivity boost for very little fuss. I still write my scripts in bash, though. I feel it’s counterproductive to expect the script user to download fish when bash is already preinstalled nearly everywhere. If someday fish reaches similar penetration I’ll reconsider.
- stouset 3y agoI do also still write my scripts in bash, but sometimes you are doing interactive work and need to know the syntactic differences.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoTo be clear, I intended my comment to either be neutral or an endorsement of fish. I found it too painful to bother with, but I'm unusually attached to sh.