OC by @phantomwise@lemmy.ml
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/whateveris giving me a headache. Actually just thinking aboutawkis 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?
35 Comments
cyborganism@lemmy.ca · 34 pts · 338d
That's basically how Powershell works.
*ducks*
e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de · 20 pts · 338d
This might be unpopular in Linux spaces but I consider Powershell for the most part well designed. I think its better suited to writing scripts than bash, but worse at being an interactive shell.
victorz@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 338d
And that's totally fine. Different tools for use cases. 👌💪
cyborganism@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 337d
It's essentially an object oriented shell. It's actually pretty good. But yeah, error outputs are a pain to read.
AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 337d
A worse interactive shell than bash? No way, I find PowerShell closer to fish for interactive use.
FizzyOrange@programming.dev · 13 pts · 338d
Yeah it was inspired by Powershell. But it also has syntax that isn't completely awful.
cyborganism@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 337d
what-do-you-mean-awful-syntax ?
FizzyOrange@programming.dev · 8 pts · 337d
Ha-Ha -exactly
stewie410@programming.dev · 9 pts · 338d
Doesn't look nearly as verbose either
Septimaeus@infosec.pub · 10 pts · 338d
Most bash fans I’ve known carve out an exception for powershell from their overall critique of windows. Personally, I think it’s not a fair comparison considering how god fucking awful everything else is in windows, but I do agree that it’s a decent shell.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 338d
Uh, this is dumb. I installed it and did a few things I would do on a normal basis. You're telling me that this is not supported? It's absolutely insane.
Oinks@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 23 pts · 338d
Nu's
findbuiltin isn't a GNUfindrepacement. I think what you actually want islspiped intowhere:I do question the choice to alias a well-known program with a builtin that does something entirely different. You can also use
^findto avoid calling the builtin. I would've expected\find(bash-like) orcommand find(fish-like) to work as well, but alas...orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 338d
I don't think that's what I'd actually want, no. I want GNU find functionality for this to be a viable shell replacement. It's... neat, but it's no daily driver.
back to /bin/zsh for me!
chrash0@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 338d
you can absolutely do what you want. GNU
findis external and since it conflicts with a builtin can be aliased or referenced like^find.the syntax is new for sure, and it’s not for everyone.
been daily driving for over a year
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 338d
I prefer flow to futz. Thanks for the info. Glad it's working for you. I'm staying with what works well for me.
BatmanAoD@programming.dev · 2 pts · 337d
You could also just alias
findback to^find. I don't use nushell as my daily driver for other reasons, and I agree with the comment above that it's a bit questionable for them to have a built-in with that name, but I don't understand why you'd even try out a new shell, let alone one that's radically different from POSIX-style shells, much less complain online about the shell you just tried, when you're already happy with the shell you're using and are not willing to adapt any habits or explore the configuration options to match your needs.cosmicrose@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 338d
They kinda have to replace some coreutils like find from scratch to be compatible with their philosophy of piping data tables instead of text. It’s super cool and ends up being really powerful but yeah it’s a whole new ecosystem which makes it pretty much impossible to be a drop-in shell replacement.
tatterdemalion@programming.dev · 4 pts · 338d
You can use both.
dice@programming.dev · 4 pts · 338d
I switched from GNU
findtofd2 years ago, unbeknownst to me at the time, this unlocked nu as a daily driver, which I’ve really enjoyed for the past year. I do fire up zsh semi-regularly when needed to escape some hairbrained corners. Scripting in nu is very nice thanks to the data manipulation and closure support. So nice to move from text manipulation to semantic structuring.wander1236@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 338d
The commands are object-based instead of text based. The philosophy is built around chaining commands to filter data. I'm pretty sure the nushell command would be
ls ./ | where type == filefindin nushell looks like it's more for filtering the output of previous commands, not as a file search.https://www.nushell.sh/commands/docs/ls.html
https://www.nushell.sh/commands/docs/find.html
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 338d
not my jam, but I appreciate that. I used to do 'find ./ | grep -i string' forever. I've come to prefer the more robust usage of 'find' these days, -type, -iname, etc.
cosmicrose@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 338d
Nushell is so cool! I’m happy it’s still progressing; I was worried it would die out because it’s such a leap from existing shells that they kinda need to develop an ecosystem from scratch. Piping actual data tables between commands is brilliant. I’ve tried using it as a daily driver but it takes some work to convert existing dot files and scripts. I might try it again.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 338d
Neat. After reading the docs for a bit, it seemed like the sort of shell that would be made by Rust programmers. What do you know, that guess is correct.
aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com · 6 pts · 338d
ConstantPain@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 338d
The "sort-by name" didn't work as expected though...
goddard_guryon@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 338d
Looking at the screenshot, I'd guess it sorted by the ASCII values of the characters, so processes with capitalized names come up first. Still not the ideal sorting, but at least makes some sense.
bitchkat@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 338d
Explain?
Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 338d
It looks like powershell, but even nicer.
f@quokk.au · 4 pts · 338d
Remember to subscribe or post in https://programming.dev/c/nushell or other communities on the fediverse!
Deebster@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 334d
I've been using nushell for a year and while it is great mostly, and means you don't need to use external tools like jq, the verbosity is tedious at times. I have a lot of aliases set, and I often use the caret escape hatch to run the traditional command if I just want a quick answer.
baduhai@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 337d
'Cause it was quarter past eleven
thewinduppirate@layer8.space · 1 pts · 338d
@cm0002 This is quite something. Not sure how I haven't come across nushell before. Definitely something I'll check out.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 338d
It's powershell for the shell. So much reverse-polish cruft.
But in these "lost boys" coding era since our mentors were ditch to save money after Y2K, I guess the 'why' of the reliable philosophies were lost on far more than lennart and his legion of apologists.
Awk is easy. Sed is easy. Find is easy. Xargs is easy. Bc is easy. Paste is easy. And these easy tools are solid and stable and can be remixed for another 40 years.
Now, if I could remember the bloody parameter ordering in
ln...HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 338d
I love nu, but I know it's a lot for people. I can't go back to bash anymore.
BetterDev@programming.dev · -1 pts · 337d
This is othering to the rest of us that just read manuals, understand how the tools work, and like them just fine.
Its fine to like nushell, no hate here, but you don't have to dis what works (and has worked) for almost everyone else for so long.
What about: "wow I am really impressed with the QOL features in nushell!" Instead of "everyone who doesnt like this is not human"?
BatmanAoD@programming.dev · 6 pts · 337d
I genuinely can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.