[mystified5016]

I'm just a regular user. I don't care at all about the grand philosophy and ideals of my terminal.

All I know is that ZSH works with 100% of tasks and scripts I need and fish does not. Therefore, I get pissed at fish and it's a bad terminal. Who cares if fish is built on fresh new philosophy and this week's language du jour if it doesn't work?

I'm using the tool that works the way it's supposed to. I don't care if it works because it's using standards from 50 or 500 years ago because that is totally and completely disjoint from being a good tool

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Okay, but is it a matter of fish not working or fish not working the way you're used to because you learned to use sh-like shells first? The people I hear praising fish the most are very often users who didn't have much experience before using it (not always, but often).

Granted, that still is a fair point IMO; backwards compatibility is for users too, not just programs.

[kstrauser]

For flavor, I maintained the bash-completions script for FreeBSD in the early 2000s, and now I’m a Fish advocate. I love it because I’ve used the others.