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.
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
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •NEO//LIX π
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •silverwizard
in reply to nixCraft π§ • •wuffel
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Lazyness is the mother of all progress.
Uwe Schwarz γοΏ½
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •kechpaja
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Thomas
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •your auntifa liza π΅π· π¦ π¦¦
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •NΓ©stor π΅πΈ
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •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
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •@hirad
yianiris
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •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
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •GΓ‘bor SΓ‘ndor Papp
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •lord pthenq1
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •fsniper
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Pxl Phile
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Jonathan Arnold
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Brandon
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Nushell
nushell.shVolker
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Josh
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •wait, no subshells in fish?
fish people, do you ever miss it / feel the need for it?
zBeeble
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •daru
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •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!
GitHubSerpent7776
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Bruno BEAUFILS
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Samuel Hierholzer
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Oils
oilshell.orgconvexer
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •convexer
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •always tired (moved to chaos)
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •zyzzyx
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •DefectiveWings βοΈ
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Martin Jost
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Private: zsh
http
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •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
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •zem
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Menel
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Switched to fish some year ago, just out of curiosity, and love it.
Using it with some fisher plug-ins and pimped with 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
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Mikel Manitius
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •For the same reason I use a Mac and not Windows.
More βfeaturesβ (bloatware) does not mean better experience.
Elyse M Grasso
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •therealslimaddy
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •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
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •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
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Graham Perrin
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •does sh respond to the 'history' command?
(As it does in, say, tcsh in FreeBSD.)
Manuel
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •nm0i
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •