[ripley12]

Switched and came back after about 3 years (to zsh).

Fish is nice in many ways, but it kinda lives up to its "A command line for the 90's" slogan. It's better than what came before it, but I'm not sure it's better enough. Using a non-POSIX shell can feel like death by 1000 cuts sometimes, and I wasn't sure the benefits of Fish were worth the cost. Also, scripting feels like a bit of an afterthought in Fish and that's a very important part of a shell to me.

These days I'm feeling optimistic about Nushell; it's not quite ready for most people to use as a daily driver, but it's getting there and it has a much stronger value proposition than Fish.

[edgyquant]

I’m a long term bash user, I tried fish and just couldn’t get used to it (death by 1000 cuts is a great way to put it.) I’ve recently settled on zsh but I still prefer bash’s basic history (e.g. just pressing up without typing any command)

[nyuszika7h]

> I still prefer bash’s basic history (e.g. just pressing up without typing any command)

Huh? You can do the same in zsh.

[edgyquant]

By default it’s iffy. I’m sure you can configure it to match bash but if I open a shell, spawn a service (e.g. run a typescript backend,) do some work in another terminal and come back the command I get when just pressing up is different. It’s such a small thing that I’ve stuck with zsh regardless, and command completion is worth so much more to me, but I still consider it a nice to have to figure out one day.

[revscat]

My other was similar: bash, zsh, fish, back to zsh. The ecosystem around zsh is just so much more robust. Fish is better out of the box than zsh, but once you start customizing fish loses its shine.

[ViViDboarder]

For me, scoping in fish feels way more intuitive than Bash does, but quite a big margin.

Also, for some reason I never come across issues with it being non-posix. Maybe I copy paste less from online then other folks.