• Digit@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Heh. I script nearly everything in fish now, because it’s way more expedient and readable. [At first I didn’t, just thought its advantages are interactive. Better scripting snuck up on me.]

    Wouldnt ZSH be the wasted middle in your analogy?

    Fish wheel already invented, no contrived middle.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      37 minutes ago

      zsh actually predates fish by almost 15 years and bash which 16 years while fish shell also ignores every standard known in favor of doing it’s own thing so yes I would say it’s re-inventing the wheel.

      Fish is known as what’s called an exotic shell, meaning that it doesn’t adhere to what is considered standard for Linux systems, which would be POSIX compliance. Now most alternative shells have partial compliance, not full compliance. But fish didn’t have any compliance. It didn’t attempt it. Like you mentioned, its use case was meant to be an interactive shell. So scripting on it was a back burner project.

      If it works for you, then that’s good. I tried it, hated the lack of information available for it, and hated the way that it didn’t follow standards. And at the end of the day, anything I made for it was exclusively for me due to the fact that I could no longer share configurations or chains with anyone else because they did not have fish shell. I’m sure it works for some but it didn’t fit my use case anywhere