• ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s what I currently use but I’ve tested fsh a little and was potentially looking to move. I just have to pull the trigger and see if I regret it or not.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I went from bash to zsh to fish.

        1. I understood bash. Manual is good, searchable, understandable.
        2. I never understood zsh. Manual is split up in several different man pages, very annoying to find what you’re looking for. I never ever understood what I was doing, config wise. Just blindly following convoluted how-to’s.
        3. With fish, I finally understand every aspect of my shell again, and it’s like 10x simpler than bash. Can be learned completely within 30 minutes or so.

        Highly recommend the switch.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Fish, so much simplicity you can keep the entire language in your head while scripting.

  • hisao@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Fish looks cool, but I decided to settle on ble.sh for compatibility reasons. This one deserves some attention too. For me the main motivation was history-based autocomplete.

      • dgdft@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Blesh adds a lot of functionality that makes bash feel + act like a fancier neoshell, while keeping the same syntax. Also includes a pre-exec hook, which vanilla bash notably lacks.

        Highly recommend.

      • hisao@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yes, but “command line editor” is a confusing term. For me it’s “get features of a fancy shell in pure bash”.