[sgarland]

Except then you go to share something with others and have to convince people to install your esoteric shell first. It’s the same reason why I quickly abandoned fish - zsh with some fish niceties (auto-complete, etc.) gets me most of the way there, and in the odd case where I’m writing a script and use something zsh-specific, it’s not that hard to convert it to bash if necessary.

[jimbob74]

as someone else mentioned, the shell you use for interactive work and the language you use for scripting don't have to be the same thing. I use fish as my primary interactive shell( on linux) - but scripts for work stuff will still be bash. That said - nushell is now my primary shell for anything windows related. And I'm aiming to do any minor automation on windows in nu rather than .bat files.

[sidkshatriya]

Nushell is tremendously concise and elegant. This might win over your colleagues.

[speed_spread]

One has to be in a very specific mood to adopt a completely different tool as fundamental as a shell. The required investment and commitment is non-negligible. Even if you can convince people of the advantages, quality itself cannot get them magically over the hump in a day.

[sidkshatriya]

You have nushell "the language" and nushell "the shell". You can still use bash, fish, zsh for your day to day shell usage. They are proven, rock-solid and super stable. However, for the kinds of tasks that nushell excels -- gluing together programs, doing simple analysis of the output of text oriented programs etc. nushell can be a viable choice. Here I'm emphasing nushell "the language".

Every language was a niche language once when the user base was almost zero. So I guess it depends on your personality and organization -- are you an early adopter ? Or do you like waiting until the tool/language has established itself ?

I would argue that nushell lets you write powerful scripts like bash. But it can be better than bash because it offers powerful constructs, patterns and primitives. I think nushell is here to stay.