• 0 Posts
  • 1.53K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: November 14th, 2023
  • Victor@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.world•But you should say you're fluent in both on your job application
    1·
    14 hours ago

    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.

  • Victor@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.world•But you should say you're fluent in both on your job application
    1·
    18 hours ago

    I dislike heavily how flow control works on it

    You mean its if and switch statements? For and while loops? Just like bash and zsh has?

    the lack of indication where it starts to where it ends

    You mean the end keyword? The start of things should be clear enough. Keywords are used for them depending on what you’re starting. I like the fact that everything ends with the same keyword. Much simpler.

    the function layout, not to mention attempting to pipe anything via it

    Piping something “via the function layout”? I’m not even sure what that means. I’d love to know more if you would.

    maintaining compatibility with other programs and scripts when using it, just made it not worth it

    This should be fully transparent. It’s a shell. I switched all my scripts to fish, and my integration with my desktop environment was completely unchanged. It’s just text in and text out.

    I have better things to do with my free time th[a]n to try and fight a shell every step of the way to make it look cleaner.

    I mean… It took me like an hour to read through the documentation, and all the syntax is so small you can memorize the entire language.

    It comes with a nice web based documentation built in. And all the built-in commands have their own man page for easy reading, compared to the jumbled mess of zsh’s docs. I could never find a goddamn thing in zsh’s two handfuls of different man pages. Nothing was where I thought it would be.

    It kind of sounds like you were fighting fish rather than it fighting you, every step of the way. That sounds absolutely crazy compared to my experience.

    My experience with fish is that I finally understood what my shell was doing and how it works, compared to zsh. I even understood what bash was doing. zsh, no. And all these files it was leaving around my home directory.

    What I will concede is that you should not convert your shell scripts if you need portability. If your scripts will be on multiple computers, fish is a bad idea if you don’t control them all.

    Otherwise it feels like some other issue is bigger here, because fish is so much simpler. Coming from me who’s been scripting in bash and zsh for about 20 years, and zsh is the only one that has stumped me, and whose documentation I’ve been struggling with. Even bash’s is better. 💀

  • Victor@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.world•But you should say you're fluent in both on your job application
    2·
    19 hours ago

    It doesn’t surprise me in the least bit, considering how complex everything seems to be in zsh.

    Years ago, I was trying to understand how the completion system works. I never understood.

    Even the user-facing shit you need to put in your .zshrc in order to enable completion in the first place does not look like it’s made for a human to read. Not to mention that you need to enable it in the first place.

    Configuring zsh was such a mess for me, for years. I don’t know why I used it for so long. Glad I gave fish a shot.

  • Victor@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•What's a random act of kindness that's stuck with you?
    6·
    3 days ago

    Can’t remember any acts of kindness towards me. Only shit I do myself on a daily basis unto others, like oh I dunno, signal my turns, hold doors for people, say hello to someone who looks like they might need some human interaction. Stuff that should be commonplace, but people live in their asshat bubbles thinking about their own asshat lives instead of being just a little bit decent toward the rest of us asshats.

    Goddammit. It’s not hard.