zlacker

[return to "The Case for Nushell (2023)"]
1. BadBad+Wo[view] [source] 2026-01-07 17:48:36
>>raveni+(OP)
I have always struggled a bit with shell replacements. I use zsh but only because of oh-my-zsh. Apart from that I always thought of shell scripts as a necessary evil for interoperability. Today you can usually expect a linux system to have bash or at least sh. That is why I do shell scripting. Nushell is usally not preinstalled on a system and so I cannot expect it.

If I want to do real scripting/programming I use python or another dedicated programming language. I don't really know what the value of Nushell is for me. Maybe the plugin system is amazing but at the moment I miss nothing in my zsh.

◧◩
2. mmh000+NG[view] [source] 2026-01-07 18:54:47
>>BadBad+Wo
I really would like a new shell that wasn't based on a poorly designed programming language from the 1960s[1][2]

However, I need to know sh/bash well because they're the tools installed by default; in any "well-established" organization, getting approval to install a new shell will range from "12 to 24 months" to "impossible". And without that, I'm not going to put in the effort to learn a new tool that is only useful some of the time and requires massive context switching.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL_68 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_shell#:~:text=Stephen%2...

[go to top]