Well, technically, it’s not broken, just slower

It’s a choice I can live without, I see the appeal of !! but usually, history is informative only, if I want something reusable, I write a function.

Ah, okay.

It shows that I’m not using POSIX shells

Yeah, I wasn’t sure there, the question mark was supposed to apply to all shells…

These additions are about user familiarity, not inter-shell compatibility is my point. Fish and bash are fundamentally incompatible. Just because they share keywords doesn’t mean they’re compatible. You wouldn’t say Rust got Python compatible just because it introduced a keyword or a concept from it.

Yeah, fish is a very comfortable shell in all regards. The standard installation does basically about 90% of what you typically want, probably more. Just very sensible in all aspects

No, but I feel bad when I need to deploy a big package for a bit of scripting.

For example, nushell is about 160 MB installed… which I find a bit much. It’s fine on my desktop, but I also have machines where this would be a significant addition.

I’m not the biggest fan of bash either, there’s a reason I use fish, though I also like elvish for interactive use (though it’s rather young all things considered) and in maybe going to use YSH for my next script project as that shell is very small (2MB or so) and yet makes sense.

Fish is really a pleasant shell, nothing groundbreaking but it’s just nice.

That said, I wouldn’t speak of “bash compatibility” just because another symbol/ operator from bash can now be used in fish (this happens sometimes), but this isn’t for compatibility but rather so that you don’t need to learn the fish equivalent. Fish has a different syntax from bash (e.g. command substitution doesn’t use $, no do in for loops…) so they’ll never be compatible. There are bash compatible shells out there (I guess zsh, dash and probably oil?), but fish isn’t and doesn’t try to be.

NixOS went from not being visible to… beating Manjaro!

Whatever that’s supposed to tell

Just don’t microwave it.