> But fish is too much like bash in syntax, meaning that I just think of it like bash until I have to type "(foo)" instead of "$(foo)", or "end" instead of "fi"
Note that fish does also support bash's "$(foo)" syntax and has for a few years now.
supporting more and more bashisms is what makes fish less attractive for me. i used fish for years. $(foo) in bash forks a subshell. in fish it doesn't. i am not a fan of supporting different syntaxes to do the same thing. if they had implemented $() to fork a subshell, that might have made some sense, but otherwise it is just redundant. learning to use () instead of $() or `` really isn't hard. so why?
Fair question. For me, it's extra friction whenever I copy a shell snippet that includes these non-fishisms, or when I'm running things between my workstation and the nearly 200 machines I manage, and I don't want to force my coworkers to have fish as the default root shell, or have to remember to "sudo --shell" or set up aliases. Well, plus, I'm still not entirely sold on fish, so I haven't wanted to set it up on my whole fleet.
I just recently switched my cordless tool ecosystem at home for DIY work. There's something about having tools that I'll reach for because they're a joy to work with, rather than avoiding picking them up because of rough edges.
em-bee|10 months ago
linsomniac|10 months ago
Fair question. For me, it's extra friction whenever I copy a shell snippet that includes these non-fishisms, or when I'm running things between my workstation and the nearly 200 machines I manage, and I don't want to force my coworkers to have fish as the default root shell, or have to remember to "sudo --shell" or set up aliases. Well, plus, I'm still not entirely sold on fish, so I haven't wanted to set it up on my whole fleet.
I just recently switched my cordless tool ecosystem at home for DIY work. There's something about having tools that I'll reach for because they're a joy to work with, rather than avoiding picking them up because of rough edges.
linsomniac|10 months ago