Is there a reason to use anything else?
>>51666160
But the sole purpose of bash is to use everything else! It's used to run other scripts and programs desu senpai.
>>51666226
they meant another shell, kohai
>>51666279
is there a reason to use another shell?
>>51666160
zsh has better auto-completion, so does fish.
>>51666160
there's plenty of reasons to use fish (not as default shell tho)
livin the meme anon
>>51666406
almost forgot
Bash for login shells (if installed), but all scripts are written for a POSIX shell. Within reason, anyway. I'm not going to turn an elegant and consise one-liner into a 30+ line mess just in case someone in the future wants to run my script on something retarded like Solaris or OS X. (We do have some Macs, but if you're using homebrew scripts to manage those, you're in for a world of hurt, brother.)
This is the way it has been for millions of years.
>>51666291
>>51666304
Completion and autocorrect do not belong in a shell, IMO. They teach you to be lazy and inattentive and enforce bad habits. Autocorrect in particular is mind-boggling. I expect a shell interpreter to do EXACTLY what I tell it to do. Every time.
>>51666536
>consise
Goddamnit. Concise. New install of FF and spell check was off. Fuck you, Universe, you ironic cunt.
>>51666536
I suppose you never used a complex app with lots of long switches, where completion is a finger saver. It ha its uses
>>51666536
What do you mean home-brew scripts? I use OS X and zsh and have had no compatibility problems with bash on Linux or sh on FreeBSD.
Also you could argue syntax highlighting, linting and code completion enforce "bad habits" but those offer too much value to pass up. Similarly when navigating in deep directory structures with cd/pushd you don't have to type each folder, just simply write:/u/l/f/e/i/g/f/r/t/b/
which will take you to:/usr/local/foo/../../../../bar
>>51666536
>Completion and autocorrect do not belong in a shell, IMO. They teach you to be lazy and inattentive and enforce bad habits. Autocorrect in particular is mind-boggling. I expect a shell interpreter to do EXACTLY what I tell it to do. Every time.
No shell has auto-correct you dunce. Nobody wants that shit. fish just shows you what you could potentially use tab-completion for as you type. The "auto-complete" suggestions are in a different color text and the only thing that counts is what you actually type.
Also you can easily just switch between bash and fish by simply typing "bash" or "fish" (+ "exit") in either terminal. You don't need to make a major commitment to either one, though you should aim your scripts at bash since everyone has it
>>51666683
>What do you mean home-brew scripts? I use OS X and zsh and have had no compatibility problems with bash on Linux or sh on FreeBSD.
Sorry, I was mostly referring to the countless dirty hacks I've put in place over the years to get Linux to interoperate with Mac environments and vice-versa. It works fine... until Apple fucks you over in the next round of updates. I've all but given up trying to do anything "low-level" in OS X myself anymore. Easier and cheaper to just set up entirely different environments and let Apple manage their own shit with their own shitty software. It just isn't worth the headache, IMO.
>>51666683
>>51666718
Okay, I'll admit it. I do like auto-complete for paths. I didn't consider that. But If you need it for a command, you should stop and read the manual first.
>>51666718
Hrm... to be honest, I've never actually used fish. I dismissed it as trash without actually using it. Because at one point it was being shilled pretty hard here. And yes, at the time, there were multiple arguments where shills were insisting auto-correcting commands *after you enter them* was a good thing.
And yes, I know how to run a shell, thanks. Come on, dude.
>>51666898
One more from me.
A clarification due to more potentially vague wording: if I literally type/u/l/f/e/i/g/f/r/t/b/
And it takes me to/usr/local/foo/../../../../bar
then we have a problem. It should error out if a directory named "u" does not exist in /.
I do like *tab-completion* for paths, though. But only paths. Because they are simple objects without potentially unknown consequences (such as where a command argument doesn't do what you might think without reading the manual).
