exa VS fish-shell

I think they are not referring to ls, but to exa [0], which is not maintained anymore.

[0]https://github.com/ogham/exa

I would also take a look at exa: https://the.exa.website/

It's been my ls replacement for a while now and it's very customizable!

It depends on the scale of the project but man, if you can't build a simple CRUD app in your preferred stack and deploy it in some fashion (even if it's just a binary posted on some website, kinda like Exa) then that's just disappointing...

Can compile to a single binary to build tools like exa

Try https://github.com/ogham/exa and exa -T -L2 command . It will generate a good folder structure tree to update the question

Some of us don't want all of GNU's utilities; just on an as-needed basis. They're not as needed as they once were.

Many of these utilities have been rewritten in Rust and have more modern features.

For example, instead of ls, I use exa [1]. Or ripgrep [2] instead of grep.

[1]: https://github.com/ogham/exa

[2]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep

fish: A very fast shell with various customization options to streamline daily commands. I discovered it through this post by @caarlos0, where he provides more details about performance and the differences between fish and zsh. Additionally, I use some CLI utilities like delta, exa, and ripgrep. Here's my dotfiles for fish.

I didn't realize fish was written in Rust, and it was my primary shell for a few years. Looks like they couldn't resist the rewrite it in Rust meme :-D

https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/tree/c2eaef7273c555...

vs the C++

https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/tree/d9d3557fcfbce1...

Follow this to install. Note that this tutorial assume that you are on Linux.

The most interesting thing about Fish 4.0.0 for most people will be that it is now written in Rust, which they talk about here [1]. Looking forward to testing it out and seeing if there are any noticeable differences.

[1] https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/pull/9512

I've probably been using fish shell [0] for close to 10 years now. When I need POSIX compliance or if I need to run a one-off bash command, I just call bash. It's exceedingly rare.

Browsing through the documentation for Oils, it seems to be organized in a way that's very confusing. When you open the fish shell website it was two clear buttons for Tutorial and Documentation.

[0] https://fishshell.com/

I remember that Julia Evans, whose blog I follow, mentioned a few time that she uses Fish. Also, some days ago I came across this post about Fish rewrite to Rust from C++, which sounds like a cool thing to do. However, I tried it some time ago, and while pretty neat, I wasn't convinced to switch to it completely.

The default shell in the above flake adds Valkey, NodeJS 22, the PNPM package manager, and the fish shell to the environment. It also starts Valkey in the background through a shell hook, passing it a custom config (declared via Nix!) and runs fish so we're dropped in the fish shell instead of our login shell.

I’m testing a new shell called fish, and I’m enjoying some features that truly make it a friendly interactive shell.

WezTerm does not have a graphical interface for configuration, and the setup is done through a Lua file (this is unusual for me, but Vim users are familiar with it). The configuration file can be located at ~/.wezterm.lua or ~/.config/wezterm/wezterm.lua. I prefer the second path because it is where Fish and starship store configs too.

Typing repetitive commands or copying and pasting test names can eat up valuable time. To help, I've created pytest.fish - a Fish shell plugin that simplifies your pytest workflow. It's lightweight, simple to set up, and makes testing more efficient.