2 ms·

Do you mind sharing what you think are the killer features of fish?

mattgreenrocks 2y ago
Being able to avoid OMZ and entire cargo cult of zsh configuration performance “hacks” that litter the internet. Really, not needing to pull in other people’s janky scripts because the built-in features work well is huge. I still configure fish and use a few scripts, but it’s the lack of the massive cottage industry that is the primary draw for me. Of course, many devs see that as a failing: “how could a shell do its job well without a thousand knobs to tweak?”
chabons 2y ago
For me, it's that the ergonomics are straightforward, and everything works out of the box. If I find myself on a new machine, just installing fish gives me an ergonomic setup without having to install too many additional tools or mess with configuration.
- HKH2 2y ago
  Also, fish_config is there if you want to make quick changes without having to look up syntax.
matthewmc3 2y ago
Fish has a lot of features out of the box I find really useful: * Command auto suggestions as you type based on your history * History search (using up arrow) based on a partial command * Helpful completions and descriptions when you hit TAB * Muti-line command editing * Syntax highlighting You can get all those same features in Zsh by using plugins, but those features work out-of-the-box with Fish with zero configuration. Zsh is a bit of a pain to configure, and pretty anemic without plugins. Fish makes configuration optional because it works how you'd hope your shell would out of the box. Even though Zsh has those features as plugins, they're kinda janky, not well maintained, and often conflict with other plugins. Additionally, Fish also has: * Excellent built in commands (string, math, argparse) * Sane scripting (word parsing where you don't need to quote everything, etc) * Great documentation * A web-based configuration if you're into that sort of thing (it's a bit of a gimmick for beginners) The main reason I use Zsh (or Bash) at all is for POSIX/portability, or for when I can't install something else. But for an interactive shell on a machine I control, it's hard to compete with Fish for speed, features, and ease of use.
- lucasoshiro 2y ago
  Other two things: Fish has an amazing integration with Docker and Git. If you type: docker stop <TAB> it suggests the hashes of the containers. About Git, you can, for example, type: git checkout <TAB> and Fish will suggest the available commits and tags. If you start to type a string it will also suggest the hash of commits whose messages match the string. I know that zsh may do the same using plugins. But Fish have all of that by default without being bloated. I use Fish since 2018, never installed a plugin and never thought that something was extra in it

Being able to avoid OMZ and entire cargo cult of zsh configuration performance “hacks” that litter the internet. Really, not needing to pull in other people’s janky scripts because the built-in features work well is huge. I still configure fish and use a few scripts, but it’s the lack of the massive cottage industry that is the primary draw for me. Of course, many devs see that as a failing: “how could a shell do its job well without a thousand knobs to tweak?”

chabons 2y ago

For me, it's that the ergonomics are straightforward, and everything works out of the box. If I find myself on a new machine, just installing fish gives me an ergonomic setup without having to install too many additional tools or mess with configuration.

HKH2 2y ago
Also, fish_config is there if you want to make quick changes without having to look up syntax.

matthewmc3 2y ago

Fish has a lot of features out of the box I find really useful: * Command auto suggestions as you type based on your history * History search (using up arrow) based on a partial command * Helpful completions and descriptions when you hit TAB * Muti-line command editing * Syntax highlighting You can get all those same features in Zsh by using plugins, but those features work out-of-the-box with Fish with zero configuration. Zsh is a bit of a pain to configure, and pretty anemic without plugins. Fish makes configuration optional because it works how you'd hope your shell would out of the box. Even though Zsh has those features as plugins, they're kinda janky, not well maintained, and often conflict with other plugins. Additionally, Fish also has: * Excellent built in commands (string, math, argparse) * Sane scripting (word parsing where you don't need to quote everything, etc) * Great documentation * A web-based configuration if you're into that sort of thing (it's a bit of a gimmick for beginners) The main reason I use Zsh (or Bash) at all is for POSIX/portability, or for when I can't install something else. But for an interactive shell on a machine I control, it's hard to compete with Fish for speed, features, and ease of use.

lucasoshiro 2y ago
Other two things: Fish has an amazing integration with Docker and Git. If you type: docker stop <TAB> it suggests the hashes of the containers. About Git, you can, for example, type: git checkout <TAB> and Fish will suggest the available commits and tags. If you start to type a string it will also suggest the hash of commits whose messages match the string. I know that zsh may do the same using plugins. But Fish have all of that by default without being bloated. I use Fish since 2018, never installed a plugin and never thought that something was extra in it