Huh, no mention of fish (fishshell.com), I wonder if it’s because fish doesn’t seem to inherit much from (and in fact, explicitely rejects many of the design decisions of) the earlier sh/ksh/csh/bash shells?
It would have fit under Exotic Shells, as scsh is mentioned, which rejects wholesale a lot of sh/ksh/csh. rc/es also reject a fair amount of bourne again shells, es is rather fascinating, and I use rc as my login shell.
I was a zsh fan for a long time but have given up and switched back to bash. zsh is wonderful, but working in the infrastructure as code / devops field, trying to use anything else is swimming up stream.
Huh, no mention of fish (fishshell.com), I wonder if it’s because fish doesn’t seem to inherit much from (and in fact, explicitely rejects many of the design decisions of) the earlier sh/ksh/csh/bash shells?
I think that might be the reason. I use fish and I really like it.
I just come to wonder if someone mentionned it. I like it too
Note that the article is dated 2011, at which point fish did exist, but I think may have been significantly less known than it is now.
(Note also that of the ones you mention, while sh, ksh, and bash have a lot in common, csh is in fact quite different.)
It would have fit under Exotic Shells, as scsh is mentioned, which rejects wholesale a lot of sh/ksh/csh. rc/es also reject a fair amount of bourne again shells, es is rather fascinating, and I use rc as my login shell.
I was a zsh fan for a long time but have given up and switched back to bash. zsh is wonderful, but working in the infrastructure as code / devops field, trying to use anything else is swimming up stream.