zlacker

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.

>>BadBad+(OP)
It is not just about scripting but the structure of input and output. Also no need to give up (z)sh switching shells is eazy.

>>timeon+Ke
Maybe I need to get into nushell more but my feeling is that if it's a simple problem it the benefit will be negligible and if it is too complicated for that I will probably write a python script.

>>BadBad+(OP)
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...

>>mmh000+Rh
That's what I mean. A new shell would need to blow me away with some amazing must have interactive feature. The scripting part is, at least for me, not really relevant. If I can install software on the target I will install a proper language and if not then it will be bash or sh anyways, even though they properly suck.

>>BadBad+1p
The "killer app" is that it's easy to string together multiple commands and have them work more reliably than shells that rely on plaintext. In other words, it's something in-between running individual commands and writing full scripts. I've not used Nushell before, but I'm very familiar with PowerShell which is similar, and it's ridiculously easy to manipulate and explore your file system with confidence that you don't have to rely on hacky and hard to read regex and similar suboptimal solutions.

>>BadBad+(OP)
We all know the dueling aphorisms of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" versus "no risk, no reward", so I'll just say this: there is a middle way. I keep a whole lotta Zsh and Bash scripts. But for work on systems I control, Nushell is a boon. I use it for interactive work and add scripts when I see a need.

>>BadBad+Bg
That is how I felt with Zsh, even though Zsh scripting is a step up from Bash. But with Nushell there is a huge space of scripts I now prefer to write in it.

>>BadBad+Bg
That was my feeling as well. Why learn some not-used-anywhere-else scripting language when we have bash/zsh with battle tested scripts and snippets? Also, nushell will probably break everything that expects a normal bash/zsh/fish.

I’d probably rather use xonsh as I do more complex scripts in Python anyways.

>>BadBad+(OP)
Python is good for general-purpose scripting, which does cover most of the tasks, but it’s still too bureaucratic when it comes to OS primitives. And when a small script at hand is tightly related to some OS thing anyway, it’s not a disservice to write it in shell.

>>xpe+e11
I use zsh because of oh-my-zsh. I don't any of the scripting features.

>>kalter+7v1
Python's main distinction from a shell scripting language is that external program invocations are not first-class citizen. Also no easy ways to feed/read the subprocess's std io.

>>csmant+Zm2
Coming from the shell, one of the most annoying things about Python is working with files. In the shell I can read and write to files on the filesystem with basically no friction and no extra infrastructure. Just a "cat" command or a <, >, or >>. The ease at which input and output can just get tossed around in the shell is the biggest thing I end up missing when I graduate up to any "real" language.

I remember when I first learned how to work with files in Python and thought "Damn, y'all live like this?"

>>BadBad+ok2
Please take this with a dose of humor (with which it is intended) ... I wonder if part of you prefers to not see Nushell for yourself? This is totally understandable; in the face of too much information, cutting off branches of investigation can be a good coping strategy.

I freely admit this is how I felt about – to talk about a different technology – the Zig language for at least a year. Until one day I spent about an hour trying it out. I am not a "convert", but it yielded useful personalized insight.

Speaking personally for a moment, when I reflect on my higher-level philosophy, it tells me: "If you notice yourself only «generating a list of reasons why NewThing doesn't fit your existing needs», you might be in a cognitive rut. Current needs matter, but so does ongoing capability development. And psychologically one's awareness of tools tends to shape what we perceive as needs.§"

So, it continues, "Instead, do a timebox and try the thing.* Attempt to see it for what it is rather than relative to what you already know! Doing this is really hard, so you'll probably need to seek out techniques to get better at it over time."

* Assuming it doesn't involve drugs, chemicals, or software supply chains of unknown origin.

§ When you only have a hammer...