Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So somewhat unique experience. I'm a designer. I code. React and css mostly. I do use Vim which I guess is weird for a designer.

I love Fish. I'm likely not their target audience.

I've been using it for years. Since the early days in 1.x land for sure. The homepage has never changed and I still laugh at the tagline. I find it's auto-completion, history and niceties indispensable. I'm the person who asks you what the command is to rerun the tests. With Fish I never have to ask you again. I just remember part of it, and suddenly I've got it.

I find its scripting language much simpler to follow than bash. I don't have a lot of scripts, but the ones I do are easy to manage. The only hiccup I get into is when I have to look up something on stack exchange, and of course the example is in Bash. These days though, with Bass and fisherman and so many other tools, i have options.

Years ago I would explain to other code friendly designers, I'm weird, don't use this stuff. Go grab zsh. Lately though it's gotten very friendly. Really the only downside for a light scripter like myself is that need to convert bash examples to fish problem. Beyond that I feel it's actually a much nicer shell for new to terminal folks.

Anyways, just an anecdote to add to the pile. Thank you to the devs that have supported it over the years.



fish is my preferred interactive shell (I have window 0 on screen set to be fish), I still write all the scripting I do in bash, because I know it's probably already installed out of the box.

Until you raised this point I didn't think if fish as something you'd script with.


I really love the syntax and performance of fish shell, I had a few bash scripts that were used to manage the system volume notifications and power/battery information, as I use fish as my interactive shell, I ported them over to fish and tried to compare the performance, and to my surprise the fish variant was faster. I decided to rewrite the random wallpaper script for sway in fish too and it runs much faster then the original python snippet I got from swaywm's issues[0] (link to original python script[1]):

    #!/usr/bin/env fish
    swaymsg 'output "*" background ~/Pictures/Wallpaper/'(ls ~/Pictures/Wallpaper | shuf -n 1)' fill'

I really love fish shell and find its multi-line input extremely valuable, I think it has a much saner syntax (I have no meaningful experience writing bash scripts), if you are like me in this regard I highly recommend writing your personal scripts in fish instead and if you are worried about posix compliance, it is not that different from a bash script with bashisms in that regard.

[0] https://github.com/swaywm/sway/issues/1269#issuecomment-4316... [1] https://git.sr.ht/%7Esircmpwn/dotfiles/tree/master/bin/wallp...


> With Fish I never have to ask you again. I just remember part of it, and suddenly I've got it.

Are you referring to something other than cycling through history?

In bash, hit `Ctrl+R`, then type whatever part of the command to cycle through history.

You may choose to adjust the size of the history file in `.bashrc` as needed.

A good reference: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-use-...


The Fish interface for this is much more convenient and elegant and ergonomic.


yeah agreed. If you have trouble understanding how it could be better just install fish and try it for 5 minutes and you'll see what we mean. There are attempts to emulate some of it in zsh, but it's still not as good as what fish comes with out of the box.

[1] https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-autosuggestions

[2] https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-history-substring-search


oh my god, i tried it and my terminal turned into a christmas tree! How can people actually work with such kitsch colors?


Because we are able to extract useful information from colorized output, being as it is an extra dimension of information output; I for one don't get an urge to pass a sort of of societal judgement of the high/low artistic worth of the use of color which may further increase efficiency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Color is indeed very useful for terminals. But it seems to me that fish takes the use of color to an exaggerated, very unpleasant, extreme. It feels overwhelming to my senses. Like having blinking text here and there. It fills the whole screen with a mix of normal and reverse text in several colors, just for simple stuff like completing an argument.


That's actually very interesting :) I personally love it and find it perfect. Concretely useful. I hope there's a way to tune it down.


You can customize the colors with fish_config


i've seen it, and it is indeed easy to tone the coloring down. The fish shell completion is amazing, I love it! Too bad the shell does not seem to support process substitution (at least not with the same syntax as bash or zsh), so I cannot use it for the moment.


With bash, I like to put this in my `.inputrc`, so I can start typing a command, and use the up and down arrow keys to autocomplete:

  "\e[A": history-search-backward
  "\e[B": history-search-forward


Fish autocompletes history




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: