![]() ![]() ![]() The syntax of Fish and Bash are different, and we cannot say that anyone who knows Bash will know Fish for sure. Zsh cannot be installed easily without the support of Bash, and this makes the portability of Zsh less than Fish. We can even install Fish from a repository to a system. Automatic suggestions and error corrections do not happen suddenly, and we have to work for the same.įish has good portability due to its simple configuration setup. Though the interactions of Zsh is easily manageable, we cannot say that Zsh is friendly and as good as Fish in interactions. It works perfectly for beginners as well as experienced developers. Installation is not that easy, and all the plugins have to be installed separately after installing the Zsh language.įish is rightly called as friendly and interactive shell due to its working and interaction with the users. Installing the scripting language is really easy for any users, and all the plugins come as a package.Īnyone can have a basic knowledge of Bash to know and work in Zsh. The scripting is really simple and easy to follow for any beginner. Functions are used to manage the use of aliases.īoth aliases and functions are used in the language, and presenting the scripts is totally different. The table below summarizes the comparisons between Fish vs Zsh :Īliases are not used. Thus, anyone who wants to work with faster scripts can choose Zsh with all the plugins installed. With all these glorifying points of Fish, one thing to note is that Fish scripts are slow, slower than Zsh.This feature is not available in Zsh, but we can use this with the help of plugins in the language. Duplicate matches are removed automatically that makes the scripting easy. Also, it easy to search history in Fish scripting with the up and down commands in the scripting language.A web configuration is set up in the Fish scripting system that helps to manage the shell beautifully and aesthetically. Both works in a similar way except for some important changes. My Fish community was formed based on the relevance from the community Oh my Zsh from Zsh scripting.Customizing settings is not a challenge in any of these scripting languages. When coming to Fish, it is much more customizable than Zsh with its help feature, consistent syntax, and many others. Context is easily understandable in Zsh, and it fills the scripts by itself in the CLI. Zsh has many customizable settings that include spelling correction, colour customization, and so on.But these characteristics can be made available in Zsh by installing some plugins in the system. How good it is when the errors are highlighted before even hitting enter in the keyboard? Zsh does not have any of these characteristics, and many Zsh scripters love Fish because of this functionality in the language. This makes a Fish script to stand out from any other scripting language. This helps the users to work with the script in any circumstances and highlight the necessary scripts shown in the language. The main difference to be highlighted here is that Fish does have a characteristic of syntax highlighting and automatic suggestions within the scripting.When more aliases are used in Zsh, Fish just avoid any kind of aliases in the language. We cannot say which is easy and which is difficult, but they are different. The syntax in both languages is different.While Fish, the easy one without any of these difficulties and disturbances, works well with any system and users. Plugins need to be downloaded and kept in a specific folder for the proper functioning of Zsh. We do not require any Bash commands or interactive Bash scripting to install Fish. Fish is very easy to understand and install when compared with Zsh.PS - If anyone would like me to help them make their own aliases for commands they enter all the time and wish to do so using fish, feel free to ask.Let us discuss some key differences between Fish vs Zsh in the following points: Is there a way to do this? Again, if not or if its way too complicate for what it's worth, no problem. $ sudo sudo add-apt-repository ppa:foo-bar/ppa upd Is there a way I can do this? In case I'm not being clear enough, here's what I'd like to do with the cli in this case: I'd like to amend this alias to ppa="sudo add-apt-repository" upd (where upd is also aliased asupd="sudo apt update"`). This is convenient enough, so if this next part would be too difficult or plain ol' impossible to do, no worries. I can just type ppa then copy the repo's ppa:foo-bar/ppa afterward and end up with sudo apt-add-repository ppa:foo-bar/ppa Right now I have alias ppa="sudo add-apt-repository". I'm trying to figure out how to make an alias with a variable inside followed by the rest of the alias. I have dyslexia so I use fish as my shell since it's great with prediction, correction and aliasing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |