4 ms·
1. No need to mess with configs. Works out of the box. 2. Breaking Bourne Shell compatibility. Personally I find Bourne syntax hard to learn and hard to read.
by ash 14y ago
1. No need to mess with configs. Works out of the box.
2. Breaking Bourne Shell compatibility. Personally I find Bourne syntax hard to learn and hard to read. Fish syntax is much better. [1, 2]
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell
[2]: http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/user_doc/html/index.html http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/user_doc/html/index.html
- bstpierre 14y agoSounds like there's no reason for me to switch. I've already messed with configs and everything is stable now, so that's a sunk cost. I already know bourne-style syntax, so learning fish (even if it's easier) is an added cost, not to mention the fact that I have to work on various boxes that I can't install fish on so it's easier to have my fingers know how to operate a single shell (zsh) that's generally backwards-compatible with bash (which is ubiquitous).
- kator 14y agoFunny I was about to say the same thing about installing on systems. When you're a systems person or work with many different customers you can't ask them to install a custom shell. Try explaining to the CIO at a major bank why all his linux boxes need fish shell installed. So we get stuck back at the minimal set of SH syntax that I learned to master some 25 years ago.