![]() ![]() I found nothing more interesting, after which I returned to Starship anyway, but it's really fast.Free version only lets you recover up to 10 files. If Starship is too slow for you, you might like Tide. Fish does not have a huge number of scripts, plug-ins. ![]() During my hypomania on Fish (yup), I didn't even use OMF, but added things manually and only those really needed, so that there was as little code to maintain as possible. > Also, I wonder how fast is OMF compared to Starship? Fish is really pleasant and forgives a lot. In the sense that with Dash you would perhaps have a similar problem. I have the impression that you just overlook all the rest of the things that can go wrong when using Bash, because you are simply used to it, you know it and you know how it will behave. > The main inconvenience of fish is not even having to go into another shell for some tasks like virtual env activation, but wondering whether some command you just ran silently did something wrong because of shell incompatibility. other shells are gaining ground that also break compatibility and maybe we'll find a future where these compatibility issues are not issues anymore because we will have learned to build environments that don't depend on that compatibility. The popularity of fish just shows that this incompatibility is not a problem to many. it is creating new wheels with features that we never had before. ![]() Reinventing the whole wheel to make it look exactly the way you want, while disregarding compatibility with everything that already exists, is probably the biggest violation of the UNIX philosophyįish is not reinventing the wheel. your own handcoded adaptions are probably not even portable to any other shell. after a while you may discover fish's own customization options, and the many tools that provide customizations across multiple shells. if you switch to fish, you should not want/need those customizations, because if you want to make fish look or work like your old shell, why are you even switching? you are learning a new environment with new features. ![]() I spend half a day trying to export my two decades of bash/zsh customizationsĭon't. maybe some day in the future your tools will work with fish too. more and more of them work just fine with fish. but it should not limit how we can design our tools.Īnd the tools do adapt. that stuff just doesn't belong there.Ĭompatibility should be limited to interoperability. imagine what we'd do if it had gone even as far as specifying programming languages. in my view, POSIX should have never even gone as far as specifying any kind of shell syntax. i like fish exactly because it broke out of the limitations imposed by POSIX. Reinventing the whole wheel to make it look exactly the way you want, while disregarding compatibility with everything that already exists, is probably the biggest violation of the UNIX philosophy. And I don't know why they decided to go the nuclear way and break compatibility so hard where they could have at least guaranteed a back-compatibility layer with (at least) zsh. I won't rewrite all of my shell functions, aliases, for loops, string concatenations and environment variables to comply with a shell that is only compliant with itself, sorry. The pattern is always the same: I read an amazing article on how fish makes X easier/fancier than bash/zsh, I install it again, I spend half a day trying to export my two decades of bash/zsh customizations, and eventually I just give up overwhelmed by the amount of required work.įish is a great shell, but I don't know why they decided to go all the way and completely break the compatibility with anything that POSIX has produced over the past four decades. I've been giving fish a try on a periodic basis every 6 months or so. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |