This #Linux, #Unix, #macOS, #FreeBSD shell feature comparison table shows that ZSH and FISH have the most features. Why aren't you using ZSH or FISH yet?
Because I'm fairly fluent in Bash at this point (at least the subset of features that I use), and for anything Bash can't do Python is far more portable?
if find source guardian shell scripts for both bash and zsh exceptionally hard (SO answers do not work) so Iist come around with helper arguments so I can test with BATS xor run my scripts
Because features aren't equal. bourne shell and subshell compatibility are essential, many autocorrections are actually a bug rather than a feature and still other rows in your graphic leave me with "meh" as their importance.
Bash Line Editorβa full-featured line editor written in pure Bash! Syntax highlighting, auto suggestions, vim modes, etc. are available in Bash interactive sessions! - GitHub - akinomyoga/ble.sh: B...
Not all "command name completion" is created equal... After using fish and powershell on my work computer and getting used to a >50% hit rate when just typing five letters and pressing β‘οΈ, bash starts to feel a bit clumsy. Would be interesting to see a powershell column in here, tooβas much as we hate MS, it *is* open source and cross platform.
I tried out fish and rejected it. For scripts, note line 1 of the table. For interactive sessions, what i remember offhand:
a) tab completion on options wipes out half the screen when invoked. Hey I was *using* my history before fish got in the way. It weighs against the nice benefit of extracting argument hints from the man pages.
b) tab completion defaults to files instead of options.
c) the colour coding mechanism might have potential, but DEFAULTS MATTER. Dark blue on black???
without that chart, because i have not tested. with that chart, because it doesn't make sense. fish doesn't support subshells (which i use), both are not bourne compatible. zsh may be an option due to syntax highlighting but i even find myself using oksh recently because it is way more responsive than bash.
Switched to fish some year ago, just out of curiosity, and love it. Using it with some fisher plug-ins and pimped with https://github.com/IlanCosman/tide
Scripts are mostly still in bash/sh But nobody needs posix to CD somewhere, sort through stuff or piping some commands. #fishshell #fisher #tide
I will not use zsh or fish because neither of them is Bourne shell compatible. I'm afraid that is a deal-breaker for me: I learned shell programming at AT&T in 1985, and csh derived shells are just wrong.
I use Zsh, for its simplicity, diverse plugin ecosystem and bash compatibility.
I donβt use any frameworks like ohmyzsh or zap whereas I have configured it to a point where my profile is my own framework which is perfectly fine for my usage.
With that said I really wish bash has features similar to Zsh and I could switch back to bash at one point in future.
1. Litteracy among coworkers: most of the group knows some level of bash, so that settles it for scripts.
2. Right tool for the job: the moment I need syntax highlighting or floats, is the moment I will need to shift to a more advanced env anyway, so the extra features of zsh and fish aren't that attractive. bash's native regex support is probably as far as I'll go before switch to Perl/Python/etc. But that is obviously dependent on one's typical usecase.
Thor Rapid
•NEO//LIX π
•silverwizard
wuffel
•Lazyness is the mother of all progress.
Uwe Schwarz γοΏ½
•kechpaja
•Thomas
•yes, it's me, liza π΅π· π¦ π¦¦
•NΓ©stor π΅πΈ
•Because it is not the standard across the zillion of servers i manage.
It is a good alternative if you work mainly in one host or in a few.
Ψ§ΩΩΨ±ΫΪ©ΩΨͺ | Enriquette
•@hirad
yianiris
•For more than 7years I haven't used anything but zsh thanks to Obarun for introducing me to it by making it default.
@nixCraft
Freevolt
•GΓ‘bor SΓ‘ndor Papp
•lord pthenq1
•fsniper
•Pxl Phile
•Jonathan Arnold
•Brandon
•Nushell
nushell.shVolker
•Josh
•wait, no subshells in fish?
fish people, do you ever miss it / feel the need for it?
zBeeble
•daru
•GitHub - akinomyoga/ble.sh: Bash Line Editorβa full-featured line editor written in pure Bash! Syntax highlighting, auto suggestions, vim modes, etc. are available in Bash interactive sessions!
GitHubGrrrr, Darth Moose Shark
•Serpent7776
•Bruno BEAUFILS
•Samuel Hierholzer
•Oils
oilshell.orgconvexer
•convexer
•always tired
•zyzzyx
•DefectiveWings βοΈ
•Martin Jost
•Private: zsh
http
•I tried out fish and rejected it. For scripts, note line 1 of the table. For interactive sessions, what i remember offhand:
a) tab completion on options wipes out half the screen when invoked. Hey I was *using* my history before fish got in the way. It weighs against the nice benefit of extracting argument hints from the man pages.
b) tab completion defaults to files instead of options.
c) the colour coding mechanism might have potential, but DEFAULTS MATTER. Dark blue on black???
Juan Alvarez
•zem
•Menel :xmpp:
•Switched to fish some year ago, just out of curiosity, and love it.
Using it with some fisher plug-ins and pimped with https://github.com/IlanCosman/tide
Scripts are mostly still in bash/sh
But nobody needs posix to CD somewhere, sort through stuff or piping some commands.
#fishshell #fisher #tide
GitHub - IlanCosman/tide: π The ultimate Fish prompt.
GitHubflench04
•Mikel Manitius
•For the same reason I use a Mac and not Windows.
More βfeaturesβ (bloatware) does not mean better experience.
Elyse M Grasso
•Adithya Ps :darthvader:
•I use Zsh, for its simplicity, diverse plugin ecosystem and bash compatibility.
I donβt use any frameworks like ohmyzsh or zap whereas I have configured it to a point where my profile is my own framework which is perfectly fine for my usage.
With that said I really wish bash has features similar to Zsh and I could switch back to bash at one point in future.
DrYak
•1. Litteracy among coworkers: most of the group knows some level of bash, so that settles it for scripts.
2. Right tool for the job: the moment I need syntax highlighting or floats, is the moment I will need to shift to a more advanced env anyway, so the extra features of zsh and fish aren't that attractive. bash's native regex support is probably as far as I'll go before switch to Perl/Python/etc.
But that is obviously dependent on one's typical usecase.
Cyortonic
•Graham Perrin
•does sh respond to the 'history' command?
(As it does in, say, tcsh in FreeBSD.)
Manuel
•nm0i
•