Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hackers-il] My "Stop Using (and Teaching) C-Shell and Tcsh" Page

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    ... My problem with FISH is that its syntax is incompatible with that of the Bourne Shell, much less with bash. As such, I recommend people not to get use it,
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 19, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On Friday 19 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
      > On 10/6/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
      > > We discussed the C-shell in these mailing lists before. A few days ago I
      > > decided to set up the definitive anti-C-shell page, based on an email I
      > > wrote, so I did:
      > >
      > > http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/csh/
      >
      > Good page. Definitely s/tcsh/bash/g is even more obvious than s/cvs/svn/g
      > ;-)
      >
      > But for those of us that find even {ba,z,k}sh unsatisfactory, I highly
      > recommend trying the Friendly Interactive SHell
      > <http://fishshell.org/>. It fixes many things like quoting, innovates
      > in configuration and has interactive syntax-higlighted
      > multiline-editing completing-on-steroids prompt.

      My problem with FISH is that its syntax is incompatible with that of the
      Bourne Shell, much less with bash. As such, I recommend people not to get use
      it, for fear it will become the next csh/tcsh. I'd rather improve bash or zsh
      in areas that one feels they need improvement, than create something
      incompatible.

      So stay away.

      And I daresay I don't find bash unsatisfactory. I'm probably still using a
      very small of its functionality, and it has many dark corners that I haven't
      investigated yet. I still haven't even found enough motivation to use zsh
      instead of bash.

      And I'm still finding myself using Perl for many non-trivial scripting
      problems.

      >
      > I do have to warn that it is still evolving, not perfectly stable, and
      > has performance problems. So you might not want it as your login
      > shell yet, but it's definitely worth checking out.
      >

      I'd rather see the good FISH ideas integrated into bash.

      > See http://fishshell.org/wiki/moin.cgi/BashToFish for some highlights
      > and a quick start.

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

      If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
      one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
      -- An Israeli Linuxer
    • Beni Cherniavsky
      ... It won t become the next csh because it s not vastly inferior ;-). It just as real a language as bash, only different. Whether to use it or not is a
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 20, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On 10/19/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
        > On Friday 19 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
        > > But for those of us that find even {ba,z,k}sh unsatisfactory, I highly
        > > recommend trying the Friendly Interactive SHell
        > > <http://fishshell.org/>. It fixes many things like quoting, innovates
        > > in configuration and has interactive syntax-higlighted
        > > multiline-editing completing-on-steroids prompt.
        >
        > My problem with FISH is that its syntax is incompatible with that of the
        > Bourne Shell, much less with bash. As such, I recommend people not to get use
        > it, for fear it will become the next csh/tcsh. I'd rather improve bash or zsh
        > in areas that one feels they need improvement, than create something
        > incompatible.
        >
        > So stay away.
        >
        It won't become the next csh because it's not vastly inferior ;-). It
        just as real a language as bash, only different. Whether to use it or
        not is a pesonal decision, depending on whether one likes it, being an
        early adopter, etc.

        Of course, as Nadav says, if somebody is going to learn just one
        shell, the only sensible recommendation is [ba]sh.

        > And I daresay I don't find bash unsatisfactory. I'm probably still using a
        > very small of its functionality, and it has many dark corners that I haven't
        > investigated yet. I still haven't even found enough motivation to use zsh
        > instead of bash.
        >
        I find any shell following Bourne shell semantics of quoting and
        variable expansion inherently broken, because it takes too much hassle
        to write correct code. IMMV.

        > And I'm still finding myself using Perl for many non-trivial scripting
        > problems.
        >
        Obviously. Command-line glue is just not flexible enough to compete
        with real data structures and interfaces that you find in a real
        language. Also, shell scripts suffer from much higher software rot
        due to dependence on numerous external programs.

        > I'd rather see the good FISH ideas integrated into bash.
        >
        Some of them (mostly the interactive features) could, and probably
        should, be integrated.
        But the syntax improvements can't be sh-compatible, because it
        explicitly sets out fix sh syntax mistakes.

        --
        Beni Cherniavsky <cben@...> (I read email only on weekends)
      • Shlomi Fish
        ... It still may introduce bad habits when using Bash for scripts. ... Right. ... Can you give some examples for that? And if so - how is FISH better? ...
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 21, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On Saturday 20 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
          > On 10/19/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
          > > On Friday 19 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
          > > > But for those of us that find even {ba,z,k}sh unsatisfactory, I highly
          > > > recommend trying the Friendly Interactive SHell
          > > > <http://fishshell.org/>. It fixes many things like quoting, innovates
          > > > in configuration and has interactive syntax-higlighted
          > > > multiline-editing completing-on-steroids prompt.
          > >
          > > My problem with FISH is that its syntax is incompatible with that of the
          > > Bourne Shell, much less with bash. As such, I recommend people not to get
          > > use it, for fear it will become the next csh/tcsh. I'd rather improve
          > > bash or zsh in areas that one feels they need improvement, than create
          > > something incompatible.
          > >
          > > So stay away.
          >
          > It won't become the next csh because it's not vastly inferior ;-). It
          > just as real a language as bash, only different. Whether to use it or
          > not is a pesonal decision, depending on whether one likes it, being an
          > early adopter, etc.

          It still may introduce bad habits when using Bash for scripts.

          >
          > Of course, as Nadav says, if somebody is going to learn just one
          > shell, the only sensible recommendation is [ba]sh.

          Right.

          >
          > > And I daresay I don't find bash unsatisfactory. I'm probably still using
          > > a very small of its functionality, and it has many dark corners that I
          > > haven't investigated yet. I still haven't even found enough motivation to
          > > use zsh instead of bash.
          >
          > I find any shell following Bourne shell semantics of quoting and
          > variable expansion inherently broken, because it takes too much hassle
          > to write correct code. IMMV.

          Can you give some examples for that? And if so - how is FISH better?

          >
          > > And I'm still finding myself using Perl for many non-trivial scripting
          > > problems.
          >
          > Obviously. Command-line glue is just not flexible enough to compete
          > with real data structures and interfaces that you find in a real
          > language. Also, shell scripts suffer from much higher software rot
          > due to dependence on numerous external programs.

          Well, there are standards defining a subset of the behaviour of such programs.

          >
          > > I'd rather see the good FISH ideas integrated into bash.
          >
          > Some of them (mostly the interactive features) could, and probably
          > should, be integrated.
          > But the syntax improvements can't be sh-compatible, because it
          > explicitly sets out fix sh syntax mistakes.

          I see.

          Regards,

          Shlomi Fish

          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
          Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

          If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
          one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
          -- An Israeli Linuxer
        • Beni Cherniavsky
          ... You CAN do anything in sh, but it s defaults are bad, which makes you use convoluted syntax or give up and write code with bugs. Consider this fish code:
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 22, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Oct 21, 2007 8:07 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
            > On Saturday 20 October 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
            > > I find any shell following Bourne shell semantics of quoting and
            > > variable expansion inherently broken, because it takes too much hassle
            > > to write correct code. IMMV.
            >
            > Can you give some examples for that? And if so - how is FISH better?
            >
            You CAN do anything in sh, but it's defaults are bad, which makes you
            use convoluted syntax or give up and write code with bugs.

            Consider this fish code:
            {{{
            set files (ls) # splits on \n, creates array
            for f in $files # space-safe!
            cp $f ../backup/$f~ # space-safe
            end
            ls -l ../backup/$files~ # space-safe, adds backup/...~ around each word!
            }}}

            The best equivalent POSIX sh code I can come up is much uglier (by
            "equivalent" I mean working in the same way; there are easier ways to
            do it but I wanted examples of specific shell constucts):
            {{{
            IFS=$'\n' files=($(ls))
            for f in "${files[@]}"; do
            cp "$f" ../backup/"$f"~
            end
            files2=("${files[@]/#/../backup/}")
            ls -l "${files2[@]/%/~}"
            }}}
            Note especially the syntax for simple one-element-one-word expansion
            of an array variable: {{{"${files[@]}"}}}
            In fish you just write {{{$files}}}!

            However, I was now pleasantly surprised that bash, when not in POSIX
            mode, has saner defaults nowdays!
            You can remove most of the quotes in the above code. Just {{{$*}}} or
            {{{$@}}} now works like {{{"$@"}}}.
            Still, the fact {{{$files}}} only gives the first element of an array,
            so you have to write {{{${files[@]}}}} :-(.

            Fish makes array variables the default, with scalar variables just
            being a special case.
            And fish's behaviour of adding prefixes and suffixes to each word
            (treating variable expansion like brace expansion) is extremely
            convenient.

            There are many more small cleanups in the syntax:
            * Minimalistic command expansion syntax: {{{(command)}}}. LISPers rejoice!
            * Simplified loop and conditionals syntax -- no {{{then}}} or
            {{{do}}}, single {{{end}}} kw.
            * Simplified special chars: \n and the like recognized outside quotes.

            In many ways fish unifies various special cases to a single generic feature.
            * My favorite example is {{{%job}}}. In bash, some builtins such as
            fg or kill special-case this syntax.
            In fish, it's expanded to the pid by the shell, so it's useful in
            any command: {{{pstree %1}}} works!
            * This goes for user interface as well as syntax.

            See http://fishshell.org/user_doc/design.html for more nice principles
            behind fish.
            The bottom line is that fish's design is compact and elegant, without
            dirty baggage.
            This appeals to me very much. It's very possible that my impression
            is subjective.

            --
            Beni Cherniavsky <cben@...> (I read email only on weekends)
          • Nadav Har'El
            ... Just FYI, in ZSH you can do the first 4 lines even more simply, with 2 lines. Zsh has (by default, when not run in sh compatibility mode) saner space-
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 22, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sun, Dec 23, 2007, Beni Cherniavsky wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] My "Stop Using (and Teaching) C-Shell and Tcsh" Page":
              > You CAN do anything in sh, but it's defaults are bad, which makes you
              > use convoluted syntax or give up and write code with bugs.
              >
              > Consider this fish code:
              > {{{
              > set files (ls) # splits on \n, creates array
              > for f in $files # space-safe!
              > cp $f ../backup/$f~ # space-safe
              > end
              > ls -l ../backup/$files~ # space-safe, adds backup/...~ around each word!
              > }}}

              Just FYI, in ZSH you can do the first 4 lines even more simply, with 2 lines.
              Zsh has (by default, when not run in sh compatibility mode) "saner" space-
              separation defaults, has syntax shortcuts (no need for do/done when there's
              just one line), and can do more things without calling external programs:

              for f in * # space-safe, and no need to call ls!
              cp $f ../backup/$f~

              The 5th line in your example is slightly more complex, and I guess the
              bash way you found

              > files2=("${files[@]/#/../backup/}")
              > ls -l "${files2[@]/%/~}"

              Is one way to do it, though in zsh, you don't need to do $files[@], you can do

              files=(*) # space safe
              ls -l ${files/#/../backup}

              and so on.

              > Still, the fact {{{$files}}} only gives the first element of an array,
              > so you have to write {{{${files[@]}}}} :-(.

              Strange.

              > * Minimalistic command expansion syntax: {{{(command)}}}. LISPers rejoice!

              Other ksh-inspired shells (including zsh and bash) already allow the $(...)
              syntax. I don't see what removing the extra "$" really buys you.

              > In fish, it's expanded to the pid by the shell, so it's useful in
              > any command: {{{pstree %1}}} works!

              Interesting. Indeed sounds logical.

              > The bottom line is that fish's design is compact and elegant, without
              > dirty baggage.

              I guess I should take a look at it sometime ;-) Maybe after 15 years with
              Zsh (before which I was mostly using ksh), it's time to consider a switch...
              Although I'm so pleased with zsh, that Fish would need to be really great
              to win me over.

              --
              Nadav Har'El | Sunday, Dec 23 2007, 14 Tevet 5768
              nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
              Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |I have a watch cat! If someone breaks in,
              http://nadav.harel.org.il |she'll watch.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.