[ComputerGuru]

I switched to fish a very long time ago (2009 maybe?) because it started up so much faster than zsh w/ all the plugins that it took to get the fancy features fish had out of the box. Since then, fish has only become a lot faster as we have focused on performance and optimizations considerably.

[sdfjkl]

I tried zsh after fish and my impression was somewhat like this: Okay, so I got to do a lot of customizing to get this to work nearly as well as fish does out of the box - can't be bothered!

[jonfw]

My impression of ZSH after fish is "ok this made for a really annoying couple of hours to set things up, but now I'll never have an incompatibility hassle again!"

When I was in school and working on my own stuff I liked using fringe shells like xonsh and fish, but working in teams I feel like I need a pretty significant productivity increase to justify using a different tool than everybody else.

[t0astbread]

Unless you source a lot of shared scripts why would it matter what shell you use interactively? You can install fish and bash side by side and use one in your terminal and one for scripting.

[jonfw]

I share a lot of snippets and commands with members of the team, write a lot of bash (which I like to debug in interactive mode), and often follow or produce documented procedures in interactive shell (not quite repetitive enough or frequent enough to bother scripting).

[dividedbyzero]

There are even things like bass and replay.fish to deal with sourcing bash scripts

[babaganoosh89]

I felt that way until setting up a new computer, then I don't bother and install Fish and move on.

[waheoo]

Omz plugins are the worst thing to happen to zsh, only surpassed by nvm.

Omz has so much compatibility code that you end up with way more than you need and a lot of what it ads can be shimmed to lazy load.

Nvm is just fucking trash. I had to rewrite large parts of it to not be total garbage. It still is. Go look at how it's installed and how it loads itself its fuckin insane.