The fish shell is amazing (rmpr.xyz)

Article summary

The article discusses the author's experience with the fish shell, highlighting its features such as autocompletion, smart tab completion, and a web-based configuration interface. The author finds fish to be a great shell for interactive use, but notes that it is not POSIX compliant, which may cause issues with existing scripts. The article also mentions the availability of plugins and plugin managers for fish. Overall, the author is impressed with fish and recommends it for those looking for a better interactive shell experience.

Main themes

• fish shell
• POSIX compliance
• shell scripting
• interactive shell experience
• plugin management
• alternative shells
• compatibility issues
• innovation and progress

What commenters say

• Some commenters argue that fish's lack of POSIX compliance is a significant drawback, while others see it as a necessary trade-off for its improved features and usability.
• There is disagreement over whether it is better to improve existing shells like bash or to create new ones like fish.
• A few commenters mention that they have switched to fish or other alternative shells and are happy with their decision, while others prefer to stick with more traditional options like bash or zsh.
• Some users appreciate the availability of plugins and plugin managers for fish, but others find them unnecessary or prefer to use similar tools with other shells.
• The discussion touches on the idea that competing standards and non-POSIX compliant shells can be beneficial for innovation and progress, even if they may cause some compatibility issues.
• A few commenters share their own experiences and tips for using fish and other shells, including how to deal with POSIX incompatibility and how to configure and customize their shell environments.