News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Fish shell 2.0.

Re:Fish shell 2.0 by krat0sprakhar on Friday May 17, 2013 @04:37AM (#5723274)
I've been a zsh user for a long time and I have to say that fish is great! Its super fast and starts almost instantaneously. On zsh, I would always use fasd[0] to help jump directories, but on fish I dont feel the need. The auto-completion is just fantastic. If I were you, I'd give it a try just for the awesome tab completions. For the 'oh-my-zsh' lovers out there, there's 'oh-my-fish' as well - https://github.com/bpinto/oh-my-fish

[0] - https://github.com/clvv/fasd

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by orta on Friday May 17, 2013 @04:46AM (#5723297)
Agreed. I've been using fish now as my default shell, it took a bit of time to get used to but it's definitely been worth the time porting my zsh functions/aliases over to fish and adding inline documentation.

Very cool.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by easytiger on Friday May 17, 2013 @07:14AM (#5723636)
i didn't think zsh startup time was an issue

$ time zsh -c "echo foo" foo

real 0m0.005s user 0m0.002s

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by donri on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:27PM (#5726272)
I think `-c` skips loading configuration. Launching a prompt will be much slower. In fish almost everything is a function and functions are loaded lazily.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by aerique on Friday May 17, 2013 @08:43AM (#5723911)
Might be an OS X thing. At work on Debian zsh starts up instantly, at home on OS X it takes a good couple of seconds.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by plorkyeran on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:15AM (#5724091)
It's an oh-my-zsh thing, mostly. Turns out that running a lot of scripts on startup makes startup take a while.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by donri on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:30PM (#5726282)
Thing is in fish functions and completions load lazily as needed, and basically every customization is done with functions. Startup is pretty much instant regardless of configuration.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by aerique on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:45AM (#5724263)
I don't run omz or many scripts for my zsh configuration.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by fusiongyro on Friday May 17, 2013 @01:56PM (#5725809)
Might want to check this out:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3880280

path_helper turned out to be boning me pretty hard at home, these instructions were very helpful.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by liotier on Friday May 17, 2013 @07:41AM (#5723700)
Completion better than zsh ? Really ?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by aerique on Friday May 17, 2013 @09:00AM (#5724010)
I'm playing around with fish since a couple of minutes and one zsh completion thing I am missing is "fuzzy" completion. In zsh with the following files in a directory:

    log-20120103
    log-20120104
    log-20120503
    log-20120603
    log-20120604
I can do: "$ less 603<tab>"

And it will complete to: "$ less log-20120603"

I cannot recall whether I had to specifically enable this in zsh.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fish shell 2.0 by jamie_ca on Friday May 17, 2013 @12:30PM (#5725319)
The variant that I most miss is the partial completion on paths. With zsh I got into a habit of `cd c/s/b/<tab>` and having it expand to `cd code/sites/blog` so long as the tabbed path is unambiguous.
[ Parent | on HN ]