Fish jokingly bills itself as "a command line shell for the 90s". It isn't revolutionizing what a shell does, rather it starts from a strong design document to provide a better experience. If you're unclear on the difference between a shell, terminal emulator, Bash, & command line interface, try Bryan J. Brown's description on his blog.
What's Good with FishWhy would I switch to Fish? Immediately after trying it out, a few advantages were apparent. I didn't even have to consult help documentation.
Discovery is where Fish shines. I discovered new, useful programs on Mac OS simply by tabing through available completions. Fish's completion is incredibly smart & detailed; it knows files, commands, variables, & flags. Bash does this too, but Fish is far superior & comes with a huge collection of completions for common programs. It's main advantage is that it'll show options, so the completion is exploratory, whereas in other shells the completion is a just convenience for people who already know what they're looking for. Fish shows the definition of a particular flag, function, or program—as well as the current value of variables—instead of merely showing that they exist.
Many of the tools I use have dozens of flags. I love them, but I can't memorize each flag for every one. Take Ack for example. I usually just add a flag for the programming language I'm searching (e.g.
--js) & the string I'm looking for. But the other day I wanted to see the number of matches in each of the large list of files I was searching. Now, I know ack can do this, but I don't know what flag(s) I need. Typically, I'd need to open up ack's man page, search through it, close it, & then run the command. With Fish, I typed a couple dashes, then tab to see all its completions, spotted
--countright away, & ran the command without leaving my current context.
Another nice advantage of Fish's completion; it learns from previously typed commands. So even if there's no custom-built completions for a particular program, Fish learns how you use it & develops completions over time.
Fish also has colors! Nice ones! They pop more than I'm used to. What's more, the shell provides convenient abstractions for changing colors. The
set_colorcommand lets you use natural language like "red" rather than the crazy looking
echo \033[1;33m(yes, this is actually how you change colors in Bash).
set_coloris handy, but Fish also has added features like
prompt_pwd, which is great for shortening the working directory for inclusion in a prompt.
If you don't want to spend hours configuring a custom prompt, Fish comes with a couple dozen nice ones built-in. You can run
**fish_config**to open a configuration interface in a web browser which gives you copy-pastable prompt code. This config feature makes it super quick to get started without a ton of research & looking up replacement tokens. Every shell should have such a feature.
Scripting in Fish is far more straightforward, as the shell's language is minimal & clean. It looks Ruby-esque & favors natural language everywhere over strange, punctuated incantations. Because it's a smaller & more rationale language, learning the basics of Fish scripting is quicker than with other shells.
Fish also has wonderful error messages, perhaps the best of any programming language I've dealt with. That may not seem valuable but it helps immensely with learning the shell, especially when transitioning from Bash. Fish will not only point to the erroneous character, but will note common mistakes & try to guess what you missed. For instance, in Bash a subshell is launched with
$(…)whereas Fish uses
(); the $ in Fish means one & only one thing, that a variable is being used. So when you use a $ in the wrong context, it says so. An example:
> echo $(whoami) fish: Did you mean (COMMAND)? In fish, the '$' character is only used for accessing variables. To learn more about command substitution in fish, type 'help expand-command-substitution'. echo $(whoami) ^
Fish is half written in its own scripting language, so it's easy to see how some features work & extend them. I noticed that there weren't any completions for Node & NPM, so I added them myself by aping existing ones. Exposing so much of the shell's core functionality makes it customizable & approachable.
AnnoyancesIn a way, Fish is the perfect shell for someone just getting starting at the command line because of its brilliant completions, easy (no code!) configurability, & sane scripting language. Unfortunately, for me, it's not quite perfect because I'm already used to Bash's quirky parts & rely on numerous packages, settings, & scripts that assume a more common (read: Bash) environment.
Example: z. Z is a vital utility for me; it allows me to quickly jump between my current location & places I've been previously. Z's API is simple; "z [string]" where "string" somewhere matches the place you want to go. So if I'm destroying system settings in "/Library/Application Support" & then need to go to my Doge Decimal project, I type "z doge" & am transported to "/Users/phette23/code/dogedc". But Z is a shell script; it's written in Bash. Luckily I found a port for Fish, but for a while I was trying really hacky solutions (including proxying Z through Bash every time I ran it). Other tools, like nvm, pose this same problem.
To be fair; various incompatibilities aren't Fish's fault. They can only be solved by popularity, so when someone writes a script they think "I need this to work in all the popular shells: Bash, Zsh, & Fish". Sublime Text proved to be the biggest compatibility pain. Sublime uses
os.environ['PATH']to find the user's path & this path is used in all kinds of plug-ins. I use several linting plugins, such as SublimeLinter-JSHint, which rely on JSHint being in your path. But Fish separates path locations with a space & not a colon; Sublime consequently misreads the whole PATH string, breaking almost every plugin I've installed.
I found a way around…and it was to default back to Bash. I ran
chsh -s /usr/local/bin/bashto switch my default shell back to Bash, so when Sublime runs
os.environ['PATH']it comes back with a predictable, colon-separated path. But then, because I actually want to use Fish, I had to edit all my terminal emulator profiles (I use iTerm2) such that, instead of running as login shells that would default to Bash, they execute the
/usr/local/bin/fishcommand. A surmountable problem, but it took me weeks to identify what was wrong & how to fix it.
In general, Fish users will run into more compatibility problems with all sorts of tools that assume a Bash or strict POSIX environment. As I said, much of this isn't Fish's fault, but it is worth noting that the shell doesn't strive for 100% POSIX compliance. In a way, this is necessary; Fish conflicts with POSIX only where a substantial benefit in usability is at stake. That's great, but it also causes headaches that can't be easily fixed since backwards compatibility is broken.
While Fish breaks with some POSIX traditions, in other places it doesn't go far enough. It relies heavily on double-underscored internal functions; anywhere there's a naming convention like this, there are scoping problems. It's not clear to me why all shell scripting languages lack true objects; everything ends up in the global scope. While Fish has nice arrays, certainly better than Bash, it still lacks data structures that aid in organization. A hash/dict/associative array type is badly needed. I think this might be a place where Windows PowerShell improves upon POSIX shells, though I haven't used PS enough to truly know.
There are also things I genuinely like about Bash. I like its
&&logical operators, which behave slightly different from the natural language
andof Fish. I like some of Bash's crazy-looking expansions, like
!!(references the last command), which are weird & hard to remember but handy at times.
My main struggles with Fish revolve around output redirection, which it seems to be more stringent about. I still haven't found a nice way to quietly test if a command exists (which occurs all throughout my dotfiles, since I try not to assume a particular software setup). In Bash, this was simple with
command -v $PROGRAM. But
commandis a shell built-in, not an external program, & so it differs in Fish. Fish doesn't replicate the "v" flag, it only uses "command" as a way to bypass aliases. I've worked around it with a two-line solution:
PROGRAM --version >/dev/null; if test $status…. This runs the program, silencing all output, & then checks the exit status (which would be 0, signifying an error, if the command didn't exist). It works, but it's slower & more verbose.
There's more than you ever wanted to know about my transition to Fish shell. I'm guessing that switching shells isn't something people consider very often. Those who use the command line rarely probably don't think it's worth the trouble (or don't even know/care that it's possible), while those who rely on the command line necessarily build up lots of dependence on a specific environment. Despite all that, I'd strongly recommend Fish to anyone and I thoroughly enjoy using it every day. The pains are, oddly enough, lesser for inexperienced shell users, while the benefits are greater thanks largely to how sane and helpful Fish is designed to be.