[anreekoh]

Ugh. I have so many conflicting opinions on this question.

So, Xonsh is superior in the manipulation of shell objects. I felt super at home changing the shell prompt and configuring/extending the default Xonsh functionality. This is all because it's literally a superset of Python.

Fish however, blows Xonsh out of the water when it comes to autocomplete and navigation. Xonsh's autocomplete / suggestions are very very weak in comparison to fish's. You feel bogged down when trying to navigate directories quickly with Xonsh. I wrote a small blog post about it here [0]

There was a piece of software I was trying to write that was meant to be Xonsh but with Fish's autocomplete [1], but really didn't succeed and have slightly abandoned it for the time being. But maybe I'll pick it back up soon.

[0] https://ezb.io/thoughts/programming/mollusk/mollusk_1.html

[1] https://github.com/enricozb/mollusk

[faho]

>I wrote a small blog post about it here [0]

I work on fish, and one of the things that the upcoming fish 3.0 contains is a new `math` builtin (previously we shipped a function of that name that just wrapped `bc`).

So your math expressions here are interesting to me, because they work in math (with the caveat that `` is still the symbol for globbing, so it needs to be quoted or escaped):

    $ math 0x113e8b3
    18081971
    $ math '719 * 114679'
    82454201

Adding them to the core syntax carries backward-compatibility questions and also isn't really what fish is about.

[anreekoh]

The benefits of xonsh are more than just the quick math, but I'm glad fish is getting something like this. I've had a Python script that does math for me, something like this [0]

I do think something like a Python shell is the best solution (for me), however, simply because of the ease of use with modifying the current state of the shell (environment variables, etc).

[0] https://gist.github.com/wackywendell/919042f19ab6932447df