the flow in general. It’s ugly and not transparent when compared to bash or any other language
Could you give a single example of this “ugly” and not “transparent” control flow, so I can compare it to bash? I’m having a hard time relating to those subjective and fuzzy adjectives. To me, fish is more clear by a mile. And that is the opinion of someone who has been scripting proficiently in bash for almost two decades, and in fish for like two years. So I’m super curious what you mean, specifically.
Is this possibly a question of bias? You are used to bash-like syntax and weren’t really open to, excited about, or even neutral to fish to begin with? Could that have been a factor?
how it chooses to start and end, there is no punctuation, it seems to emulate a tab oriented language
I don’t get this. Everything that starts a block of statements or control flow is a statement in itself, like function, or if. You can do the next statement on the next line, or add punctuation (;) and add the next statement on the same line. Just like bash.
What’s weird, I always thought, was that bash had these weird, required, extra statements that are needed, like then, and do, etc. Those are ugly to me, and make no sense when you think about it for a little bit. They are excessive and unneeded. The first keyword indicates the start of the thing, by itself. Really simple, and a good design choice IMO. Fewer LOC, less verbosity, without being too terse and sacrificing legibility but only increasing it.
Piping and redirecting are badly implemented
it wouldn’t function unless I used a pager which wasn’t needed in Bash
Super curious about this scenario. Piping isn’t different in fish. You just pipe output to an input. So yeah, very curious about this specific case.
Could you give a single example of this “ugly” and not “transparent” control flow, so I can compare it to bash? I’m having a hard time relating to those subjective and fuzzy adjectives. To me, fish is more clear by a mile. And that is the opinion of someone who has been scripting proficiently in bash for almost two decades, and in fish for like two years. So I’m super curious what you mean, specifically.
Is this possibly a question of bias? You are used to bash-like syntax and weren’t really open to, excited about, or even neutral to fish to begin with? Could that have been a factor?
I don’t get this. Everything that starts a block of statements or control flow is a statement in itself, like
function, orif. You can do the next statement on the next line, or add punctuation (;) and add the next statement on the same line. Just like bash.What’s weird, I always thought, was that bash had these weird, required, extra statements that are needed, like
then, anddo, etc. Those are ugly to me, and make no sense when you think about it for a little bit. They are excessive and unneeded. The first keyword indicates the start of the thing, by itself. Really simple, and a good design choice IMO. Fewer LOC, less verbosity, without being too terse and sacrificing legibility but only increasing it.Super curious about this scenario. Piping isn’t different in fish. You just pipe output to an input. So yeah, very curious about this specific case.