5 ms·

I've been a zsh user for a long time and I have to say that fish is great! Its super fast and starts almost instantaneously. On zsh, I would always use fasd[0]

I've been a zsh user for a long time and I have to say that fish is great! Its super fast and starts almost instantaneously. On zsh, I would always use fasd[0] to help jump directories, but on fish I dont feel the need. The auto-completion is just fantastic. If I were you, I'd give it a try just for the awesome tab completions. For the 'oh-my-zsh' lovers out there, there's 'oh-my-fish' as well - https://github.com/bpinto/oh-my-fish https://github.com/bpinto/oh-my-fish [0] - https://github.com/clvv/fasd https://github.com/clvv/fasd

orta 13y ago
Agreed. I've been using fish now as my default shell, it took a bit of time to get used to but it's definitely been worth the time porting my zsh functions/aliases over to fish and adding inline documentation. Very cool.
easytiger 13y ago
i didn't think zsh startup time was an issue $ time zsh -c "echo foo" foo real 0m0.005s user 0m0.002s
- aerique 13y ago
  Might be an OS X thing. At work on Debian zsh starts up instantly, at home on OS X it takes a good couple of seconds.
  - plorkyeran 13y ago
    It's an oh-my-zsh thing, mostly. Turns out that running a lot of scripts on startup makes startup take a while.
    - aerique 13y ago
      I don't run omz or many scripts for my zsh configuration.
    - donri 13y ago
      Thing is in fish functions and completions load lazily as needed, and basically every customization is done with functions. Startup is pretty much instant regardless of configuration.
  - fusiongyro 13y ago
    Might want to check this out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3880280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3880280 path_helper turned out to be boning me pretty hard at home, these instructions were very helpful.
- donri 13y ago
  I think `-c` skips loading configuration. Launching a prompt will be much slower. In fish almost everything is a function and functions are loaded lazily.
liotier 13y ago
Completion better than zsh ? Really ?
- aerique 13y ago
  I'm playing around with fish since a couple of minutes and one zsh completion thing I am missing is "fuzzy" completion. In zsh with the following files in a directory: log-20120103 log-20120104 log-20120503 log-20120603 log-20120604 I can do: "$ less 603<tab>" And it will complete to: "$ less log-20120603" I cannot recall whether I had to specifically enable this in zsh.
  - jamie_ca 13y ago
    The variant that I most miss is the partial completion on paths. With zsh I got into a habit of `cd c/s/b/<tab>` and having it expand to `cd code/sites/blog` so long as the tabbed path is unambiguous.

orta 13y ago

Agreed. I've been using fish now as my default shell, it took a bit of time to get used to but it's definitely been worth the time porting my zsh functions/aliases over to fish and adding inline documentation. Very cool.

easytiger 13y ago

i didn't think zsh startup time was an issue $ time zsh -c "echo foo" foo real 0m0.005s user 0m0.002s

aerique 13y ago
Might be an OS X thing. At work on Debian zsh starts up instantly, at home on OS X it takes a good couple of seconds.
- plorkyeran 13y ago
  It's an oh-my-zsh thing, mostly. Turns out that running a lot of scripts on startup makes startup take a while.
  - aerique 13y ago
    I don't run omz or many scripts for my zsh configuration.
  - donri 13y ago
    Thing is in fish functions and completions load lazily as needed, and basically every customization is done with functions. Startup is pretty much instant regardless of configuration.
- fusiongyro 13y ago
  Might want to check this out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3880280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3880280 path_helper turned out to be boning me pretty hard at home, these instructions were very helpful.
donri 13y ago
I think `-c` skips loading configuration. Launching a prompt will be much slower. In fish almost everything is a function and functions are loaded lazily.

liotier 13y ago

Completion better than zsh ? Really ?

aerique 13y ago
I'm playing around with fish since a couple of minutes and one zsh completion thing I am missing is "fuzzy" completion. In zsh with the following files in a directory: log-20120103 log-20120104 log-20120503 log-20120603 log-20120604 I can do: "$ less 603<tab>" And it will complete to: "$ less log-20120603" I cannot recall whether I had to specifically enable this in zsh.
- jamie_ca 13y ago
  The variant that I most miss is the partial completion on paths. With zsh I got into a habit of `cd c/s/b/<tab>` and having it expand to `cd code/sites/blog` so long as the tabbed path is unambiguous.