3 ms·
Switching away from being bash compatible would be really unexpected. Too many existing scripts and websites explaining how to do things. Maybe something like h
by viraptor 2y ago
Switching away from being bash compatible would be really unexpected. Too many existing scripts and websites explaining how to do things. Maybe something like http://www.oilshell.org/ http://www.oilshell.org/ has a chance though?
If we were breaking away from the old style shells completely, then https://www.nushell.sh/ https://www.nushell.sh/ would be my preferred upgrade.
- poincaredisk 2y agoI use fish personally. I don't see value in using a bash compatible shell for interactive use (I can run bash scripts anyway, just like I can run python and perl scripts)
- fragmede 2y agoThe value is in using the same language for scripting as interacting with the computer as a shell, so that you're more fluent in that language when it comes out writing things with that language.
- setopt 2y agoThe benefit is if you often have to work on remote servers where only Bash is available. Then, using the same interactive syntax locally and remotely is simply less jarring, since switching between e.g. the Fish and Bash for-loop syntax every hour causes lots of mix-ups. (I write a lot of loops interactively in the CLI.) I used Fish for ~5 years and loved it, but I ended up going back to Zsh myself.