Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2183 > unrolled thread

Fish Shell - a new shell for modern times.

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Fish Shell - a new shell for modern times. Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-31 13:03 -0700
    Re: Fish Shell - a new shell for modern times. Alvaro Martinez <alvaro@elcodiguero.com> - 2014-04-01 10:40 -0300
      Re: Fish Shell - a new shell for modern times. Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-01 16:39 -0700
    Re: Fish Shell - a new shell for modern times. Morten Nygaard Åsnes <mnaasnes@gmail.com> - 2014-04-02 12:49 +0200

#2183 — Fish Shell - a new shell for modern times.

I've been playing around with the Fish shell for a while.  I must 
confess that I like it much better than other shells.  It was not 
designed for script-compatibility with any other shell, but that's OK 
because pretty much any Unixy system that has a shell has sh or bash 
included.

("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell")

It's quite nice.  I realize it seems like heresy to some to choose a 
different shell but I would recommend giving it a shot.  While it aims 
to be easier to use it is also significantly more powerful as well.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2191

It looks nice, definitely. I like the inline help feature, often I find 
myself trying to write a complex command line and not remembering 
exactly the name of a parameter. It is a huge distraction to break the 
line of thought in order to open a man page. The Unix CLI tools tend not 
to be consistent with each other.

If I were to request a feature for a shell, it would be an online syntax 
check like the programming editors have.
Something that gives me an error message if I write (and while I'm 
writing it) "while something; then" or "if something; do", "cp -a" in a 
Solaris box, or "ps aux" when the version of ps in the $PATH is not a 
BSD variant. I usually find those errors myself, but it sometimes feels 
like I'm walking on a minefield, having to check all the time if I'm 
using the right switches.

The lack of script compatibility is a no-go, however.
I work at the command line, and write many scripts that must run in 
Solaris and Linux (luckily not many different versions), so having a 
different syntax in the interactive shell is not something I'd consider 
useful. In particular when something like "set foo bar" is perfectly 
valid in other shells, only with completely different semantics.

I have played a little with Terminology (terminal emulator for 
Enlightenment), some of the additions are very useful, it looks like an 
enhanced Eterm :)

http://enlightenment.org/p.php?p=about/terminology&l=en

Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> I've been playing around with the Fish shell for a while.  I must
> confess that I like it much better than other shells.  It was not
> designed for script-compatibility with any other shell, but that's OK
> because pretty much any Unixy system that has a shell has sh or bash
> included.
>
> ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell")
>
> It's quite nice.  I realize it seems like heresy to some to choose a
> different shell but I would recommend giving it a shot.  While it aims
> to be easier to use it is also significantly more powerful as well.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2198

On 2014-04-01 13:40:23 +0000, Alvaro Martinez said:

> It looks nice, definitely. I like the inline help feature, often I find 
> myself trying to write a complex command line and not remembering 
> exactly the name of a parameter. It is a huge distraction to break the 
> line of thought in order to open a man page. The Unix CLI tools tend 
> not to be consistent with each other.
> 
> If I were to request a feature for a shell, it would be an online 
> syntax check like the programming editors have.
> Something that gives me an error message if I write (and while I'm 
> writing it) "while something; then" or "if something; do", "cp -a" in a 
> Solaris box, or "ps aux" when the version of ps in the $PATH is not a 
> BSD variant. I usually find those errors myself, but it sometimes feels 
> like I'm walking on a minefield, having to check all the time if I'm 
> using the right switches.
> 
> The lack of script compatibility is a no-go, however.
> I work at the command line, and write many scripts that must run in 
> Solaris and Linux (luckily not many different versions), so having a 
> different syntax in the interactive shell is not something I'd consider 
> useful. In particular when something like "set foo bar" is perfectly 
> valid in other shells, only with completely different semantics.
> 
> I have played a little with Terminology (terminal emulator for 
> Enlightenment), some of the additions are very useful, it looks like an 
> enhanced Eterm :)
> 
> http://enlightenment.org/p.php?p=about/terminology&l=en
> 
> Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> I've been playing around with the Fish shell for a while.  I must
>> confess that I like it much better than other shells.  It was not
>> designed for script-compatibility with any other shell, but that's OK
>> because pretty much any Unixy system that has a shell has sh or bash
>> included.
>> 
>> ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell")
>> 
>> It's quite nice.  I realize it seems like heresy to some to choose a
>> different shell but I would recommend giving it a shot.  While it aims
>> to be easier to use it is also significantly more powerful as well.

I hear you, but long ago I abandoned bash for perl when it comes to 
scripting anyway.  I like the fish shell mainly for the interactivity 
features.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2206

On 2014-03-31, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been playing around with the Fish shell for a while.  I must 
> confess that I like it much better than other shells.  It was not 
> designed for script-compatibility with any other shell, but that's OK 
> because pretty much any Unixy system that has a shell has sh or bash 
> included.

I'm embarrassed to admit that as a result of your post I just got the pun in
the name of the cshell.

-- 
~
~
~
:wq

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web