Using fish doesn't mean you have to stop using existing bash scripts.

kolev · on May 18, 2015

I understand that, but my point was that Fish is yet another big missed opportunity.

mixmastamyk · on May 19, 2015

I'm still not certain what you are missing from it? It's not perfect but good enough for an interactive shell at this point. Good to stick to .sh for deployed simple scripts on 'nix though.

Fish won't become PowerShell, that's for sure. I like the idea of PowerShell, but it's a bit too ugly in person. I'm happy enough with cmd, cmder, and Python for scripting.

ufo · on May 19, 2015

Powershell focuses a lot on being a good language to write scripts on. Hence the data structures, verbose names, etc.

On the other hand, Fish is mostly focused on being a powerful interactive shell. Its all about having good auto completion (fueled by parsing manpages), history search, etc.

I do believe that its very hard to have a shell language thats good at these two domains at the same time and that we are better off having separate languages for each. Trying to solve both these problems at once is what made bash into the mess it is now in the first place.

joshkraemer · on May 19, 2015

Fish (like zsh) may leave a lot to be desired, but it is an enormous improvement over bash. I have been using fish for several years, and especially its autocompletion is indispensable to me. (However, I use it as an interactive shell only; TCL is my scripting language of choice.)