[tmysl]

As nice as fish is, it's not fully posix compliant, leads to some weird bugs here and there

[pushpop]

Is it really a “bug” if you’re writing incompatible code for Fish? Bug implies unexpected behaviour but I’d argue that Fish’s non-POSIX behaviour is well discussed, documented, and thus should be completely expected.

[rgoulter]

AFAIR the problems using fish tend to be when other programs (e.g. vim or whatever) try and interact with the shell and it's non-POSIX compliant.

The "expect it to work, didn't" is more on the user's side, going from e.g. bash to fish.

[pmarin]

I know it was just an example but on any Vi clone you can set the default shell:

   :set shell=/bin/bash

[pmarin]

For interactive shells do not matter if is not POSIX compliant. I use csh (the really old one) as interactive shell.

[e12e]

Yes and no. One nice thing about shell, is that you can log your commands/look at your history - and easily automate tasks (turn an interactive session into a script).

The only trouble is, such snippets have a way of sneaking into documentation, ci pipelines and other places.

And then non-posix isn't quite as nice anymore. Even if csh or fish might be the nicer language.

I do think the oil shell project is on the right track, by trying to "fix" shell (and fish is a great source of inspiration for the interactive part).

Still, when plan9 didn't manage to take over, I guess I'm a bit sceptical about any new shell having much success...

[kbumsik]

It matters a lot when dealing with default environment variables. Even when expanding $PATH fish will give you much headache.

[Symmetry]

I recommend leaving bash as your system shell and just telling your terminal emulators to start with fish.

[akx]

Those are probably bugs you could report to the project.

[kick]

They're intentional.

They have considered a compatibility layer in the past:

https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/wiki/POSIX-compatib...