I’ve been trying nushell and words fail me. It’s like it was made for actual humans to use! 🤯 🤯 🤯

It even repeats the column headers at the end of the table if the output takes more than your screen…

Trying to think of how to do the same thing with awk/grep/sort/whatever is giving me a headache. Actually just thinking about awk is giving me a headache. I think I might be allergic.

I’m really curious, what’s your favorite shell? Have you tried other shells than your distro’s default one? Are you an awk wizard or do you run away very fast whenever it’s mentioned?

  • esa@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’ve been using fish (with starship for prompt) for like a year I think, after having had a self-built zsh setup for … I don’t know how long.

    I’m capable of using awk but in a very simple way; I generally prefer being able to use jq. IMO both awk and perl are sort of remnants of the age before JSON became the standard text-based structured data format. We used to have to write a lot of dinky little regex-based parsers in Perl to extract data. These days we likely get JSON and can operate on actual data structures.

    I tried nu very briefly but I’m just too used to POSIX-ish shells to bother switching to another model. For scripting I’ll use #!/bin/bash with set -eou pipefail but very quickly switch to Python if it looks like it’s going to have any sort of serious logic.

    My impression is that there’s likely more of us that’d like a less wibbly-wobbly, better shell language for scripting purposes, but that efforts into designing such a language very quickly goes in the direction of nu and oil and whatnot.

    • Overspark@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      nu 's commands also work on JSON, so you don’t really need jq (or xq or yq) any more. It offers a unified set of commands that’ll work on almost any kind of structured data.

    • phantomwise@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s interesting I hadn’t thought about the JSON angle! Do you mean that you can actually use jq on regular command outputs like ls -l?

      Oil is an interesting project and the backward compatibility with bash is very neat! I don’t see myself using it though, since it’s syntax is very close to bash on purpose I’d probably get oil syntax and bash syntax all mixed up in my head and forget which is which… So I went with nushell because it doesn’t look anything like bash. If you know python what do you think about xonsh? I

      • esa@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s interesting I hadn’t thought about the JSON angle! Do you mean that you can actually use jq on regular command outputs like ls -l?

        No, you need to be using a tool which has json output as an option. These are becoming more common, but I think still rare among the GNU coreutils. ls output especially is unparseable, as in, there are tons of resources telling people not to do it because it’s pretty much guaranteed to break.

        • elmicha@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          There’s jc (CLI tool and python library that converts the output of popular command-line tools, file-types, and common strings to JSON, YAML, or Dictionaries).

          • cyrl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            You’ve opened a rabbit hole I know I’m just going to fall down… thanks netizen!

  • apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    I used nushell for a good 6 months, it was nice having structured data, but the syntax difference to bash which I use for my day job was just too jarring to stick with.

    Fish was (for me) the right balance of nice syntactic sugar and being able to reasonably expect a bash idiom will work.

  • priapus@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    I love Nushell, it’s so much more pleasant for writing scripts IMO. I know some people say they’d just use Python if they need more than what a POSIX shell offers, but I think Nushell is a perfect option in between.

    With a Nushell scripts you get types, structured data, and useful commands for working with them, while still being able to easily execute and pipe external commands. I’ve only ever had two very minor gripes with Nushell, the inability to detach a process, and the lack of a -l flag for cp. Now that uutils supports the -l flag, Nushell support is a WIP, and I realized systemd-run is a better option than just detaching processes when SSHd into a server.

    I know another criticism is that it doesn’t work well with external cli tools, but I’ve honestly never had an issue with any. A ton of CLI tools support JSON output, which can be piped into from json to make working with it in Nushell very easy. Simpler tools often just output a basic table, which can be piped into detect columns to automatically turn it into a Nushell table. Sometimes strange formatting will make this a little weird, but fixing that formatting with some string manipulation (which Nushell also makes very easy) is usually still easier than trying to parse it in Bash.

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    Nushell looks cool but I prefer to stick with the POSIXes so that I know my scripts will always work and syntax always does what I expect it to. I use zsh as a daily driver, and put up with various bashes, ashes, dashes, that come pre-installed with systems I won’t be using loads (e.g. temporary vms).

    • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Always confuses me when people say this. You can use multiple different shells / scripting languages, just as you can use multiple programming languages.

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        If you want your scripts to “always work” you’ll need to go with the most common/standard language, because the environments you work on might not be able to use all of those languages.

        • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I mean if all your scripts are fully general purpose. That just seems really weird to me. I don’t need to run my yt-dlp scripts on the computational clusters I work on.

          Moreover, none of this applies to the interactive use of the shell.

          • Ferk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            It’s not only clusters… I have my shell configuration even in my Android phone, where I often connect to by ssh. And also in my Kobo, and in my small portable console running Knulli.

            In my case, my shell configuration is structured in some folders where I can add config specific to each location while still sharing the same base.

            Maybe not everything is general, but the things that are general and useful become ingrained in a way that it becomes annoying when you don’t have them. Like specific shortcuts for backwards history search, or even some readline movement shortcuts that apparently are not standard everywhere… or jumping to most ‘frecent’ directory based on a pattern like z does.

            If you don’t mind that those scripts not always work and you have the time to maintain 2 separate sets of configuration and initialization scripts, and aliases, etc. then it’s fine.

            • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              those scripts not always work

              This feels like ragebait. I have multiple devices, use fish whenever that can be installed and zsh/bash when not, and have none of these issues.

              EDIT:

              or some methods to jump to most recent directory like z.

              Manually downloading the same shell scripts on every machine is just doing what the package manager is supposed to do for you. I did this once to get some rust utils like eza to get them to work without sudo. It’s terrible.

              • Ferk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Manually downloading the same shell scripts on every machine is just doing what the package manager is supposed to do for you

                If you have a package manager available, and what you need is available there, sure. My Synology NAS, my Knulli, my cygwin installs in Windows, my Android device… they are not so easy to have custom shells in (does fish even have a Windows port?).

                I rarely have to manually copy, in many of those environments you can at least git clone, or use existing syncing mechanisms. In the ones that don’t even have that… well, at least copying the config works, I just scp it, not a big deal, it’s not like I have to do that so often… I could even script it to make it automatic if it ever became a problem.

                Also, note that I do not just use things like z straight away… my custom configuration automatically calls z as a fallback when I mistype a directory with cd (or when I intentionally use cd while in a far/wrong location just so I can reach faster/easier)… I have a lot of things customized, the package install would only be the first step.

                • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  So you’re willing to do a lot of manual package managing, in general put a lot of work into optimizing your workflow, adjusting to different package availability, adjusting to different operating systems…

                  …but not writing two different configs?

                  That is your prerogative but you’re not convincing me. Though I don’t think I’ll be convincing you either.

                  I have separate configs/aliases/etc for most of my machines just because, well, they are different machines with different hardware, software, data, operating systems and purposes. Even for those (most) that I can easily install fish on.

      • communism@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I know that. I just don’t have a use case for alternative shells. Zsh works fine for me and I know how it works. I don’t have problems that need fixing, so I don’t need to take the time to learn a new, incompatible shell.

    • phantomwise@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t really mind having a non-POSIX shell since it doesn’t prevent bash scripts from working, but I get that if you want portability bash is still best since it’ll work mostly anywhere.

      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        If I can shebang nutshell (assuming all the builtins from bash or even sh work) and pass a flag to remove all the fancy UI-for-humans formatting so that piped commands int eh scripts work, then I think this is incredible.

        Yeah having this installed along side other more “standard” shells is fine I guess, but it looks like maybe it has some neat functionality that is more difficult in other shells? I guess I’d need to read up on it more but having a non-interactive mode for machines to read more easily would be a huge plus for it overall. I suppose that depends on what it offers/what it’s trying to accomplish.

  • Ferk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I prefer getting comfortable with bash, because it’s everywhere and I need it for work anyway (no fancy shells in remote VMs). But you can customize bash a lot to give more colored feedback or even customize the shortcuts with readline. Another one is pwsh (powershell) because it’s by default in Windows machines that (sadly) I sometimes have to use as VMs too. But you can also install it in linux since it’s now open source.

    But if I wanted to experiment personally I’d go for xonsh, it’s a python-based one. So you have all the tools and power of python with terminal convenience.

    • phantomwise@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah if you need to work on machines with bash it makes sense to stick with it. Sorry you have to work on Windows… how is powershell compared to bash?

      I don’t know python but xonsh seems really cool, especially since like nushell it works on both linux and windows so you don’t have to bother about OS specific syntax

      • brianary@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        What awful syntax?

        Ffs bash uses echo "${filename%.*}" and substring=${string:0:5} and lower="${var,,}" and title="${var^}" &c. It doesn’t use $ for assignment, only in expressions.

  • black_flag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Nushell is great, I should use it again. Gave up on it after I wrote a thing for converting fish completions to their autocomplete system for it and their internal autocomplete didn’t perform anywhere nearly adequately.

    • Overspark@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Check out carapace. It takes a bit of setup but basically tries to make all the completions work in almost any shell. For me that solved the big step backwards from fish’s completions that nu’s native completions have.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I feel like if I was forced to use PowerShell I’d fall in love with it and want to use it on Linux. Passing objects between commands instead of text sounds amazing. So many (Linux) shell commands use slightly differently shaped text, it’s annoying. New line separated? Tab separated? Null separated? Comma separated? Multiple fields? JSON? And converting between them all and using different flags to accept different ones is just such a headache.

    • brax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      PowerShell’s import-csv and export-csv are too dang powerful. Doing batch processing in PS is so cool.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It is, but I know myself and realistically unless I’m forced to learn it in an environment where it’s first class I’m not going to use it on a regular basis.

  • ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Love nushell. It’s just about the most practical functional programming language I’ve ever had the pleasure of using.

    I’m using fish as my default shell since it’s more standards-compliant and plays nicer with tools that modify your environment. But any time I need to do more complicated shell scripting, I’m breaking out nushell.

  • calliope@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I use zsh, mainly because I’ve been using it for a really long time and it felt like an upgraded bash.

    I also have used fish a tiny amount and like the idea but zsh just works for my purposes and I already know how it works.

    nushell looks really cool though!

    I don’t have much occasion to use awk any more but it can be really useful!

    • phantomwise@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’ve also been using zsh until now, it’s clear it’s a massive improvement over bash. No more accidentally pasting code into the terminal!

      I wasn’t even looking for a new interactive shell, zsh is fine, I was looking for a new language for shell scripts because I’m tired of bash’s legacy quirks… but the interactive nushell was too cool to resist!

  • Obin@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m really curious, what’s your favorite shell?

    Emacs eshell+eat

    It essentially reverses the terminal/shell relationship. Here, it’s the shell that starts a terminal session for every command. Eshell is also tightly integrated with Emacs and has access to all the extended functionality. You can use Lisp in one-liners, you can pipe output directly to an emacs buffer, you can write custom commands as lisp functions, full shortcut customization not limited to terminal keys, history search via the completion framework (i.e. consult-history), easy prompt customization, etc.

    There’s also Tramp, which lets you transparently cd into remote hosts via ssh, docker containers, SMB/NFS-shares, archive files, and work with them as if they were normal directories (obviously with limited functionality in some cases, like archives).

    And probably a lot of stuff I’m missing right now.

  • DasFaultier@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    (…) 'cause it was quarter part eleven

    on a Saturday in 1999

    🎶🎶

    To answer your questions, I work on the Bash, because it’s what’s largely used at work and I don’t have the nerve to constantly make the switch in my head. I have tried nushell for a few minutes a few months ago, and I think it might actually be great as a human interface, but maybe not so much for scripting, idk.

    • Ŝan@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      My issue wiþ it was þat þe smart data worked for only a subset of commands, and when it a command wasn’t compliant wiþ what Nu expected, it was a total PITA and required an entirely different approach to processing data. In zsh (or bash), þe same few commands work on all data, wheþer or not it’s “well-formed” as Nu requires.

      Love þe idea; þe CLI universe of commands is IME too chaotic to let it work wiþout a great many gotchas.

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I agree completely with that sentiment, I had the same problem, the output of most commands was interpreted in a way that was not compatible with the way Nu structures data and yet it still rendered as if it were a table with 1 single entry… it was a bit annoying.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Love þe idea

        Wouldn’t that be a different character because it’s a voices th? Usually that character represents a voiceless th.

        • Ŝan@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          In Icelandic, yes. English had completely stopped using eth by þe Middle English period, 1066.

          • Ferk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Didn’t they also stop using the þ in Modern English?

            Why use þ (Þ, thorn) but not ð (Ð, eth)? …and æ (Æ, ash) …might as well go all the way if you want to type like that.