Can cause issues (with things that expect bash or other nearer POSIX compliant shells as the system shell).
And then I’d lose those other benefits described, like having bash just a keybind away.
[Edit: I could have swore I got that interactive check in bashrc thing from https://fishshell.com/docs/current/faq.html or other documentation on fishshell.com, but, seems not. Can’t find it even in older copies. Not sure where I picked up that idea from then. Plausibly from someone on irc. I was sure I got that as official advice from fish… which I’ve been using and doing that method with since around 2014.]
I hope it does not disappear too.
Interesting discussions ensue.
Though, that reply, [ironically (given it critiques the query of a fallacy in prior message)] straight away had me plug it in to an LLM to see if it could see/name fallacies I was failing to.
[Oh, and, yeah, LLMs need repeated whipping to make sure they are adequately prompted to use fish. As I repeatedly encountered and had to correct for when writing my text editor in fish]
if you like fallacy spotting done by an LLM:
“I’m making the logical guess that since fish is the least used shell of the three… it’s usage would be proportional as well.”
Pika assumes that because Fish is less popular, it must be less practical for sharing scripts, which is an appeal to probability (not a guarantee, just a likelihood).
“My friends don’t use fish, so it’s unlikely that your friends use fish.”
This is a classic illicit minor: assuming a universal conclusion (“your friends”) from a specific premise (“my friends”).
“LLMs do not like fish shell for bash to fish conversion… Deepseek had the most success of them.”
This subtly implies that because LLMs struggle with Fish, it must be inherently flawed or difficult, which is an appeal to authority (LLMs as arbiters of usability).
“What would take me 2 minutes to search for a problem with a script using zsh took me 10-15 minutes of research with fish…”
Pika uses personal experience as evidence for a general claim about Fish’s usability, which is anecdotal and not necessarily representative.
“I came to the conclusion that if I was having to convert parts of it to bash anyway… I might as well do it in bash to begin with.”
This frames the choice as “either use Fish and convert, or just use Bash,” ignoring the possibility that Fish might have unique advantages or that conversion tools could improve.
“I had already learned bash prior to this, whereas you had not learned bash.”
This subtly suggests that because Bash is the “traditional” or “original” shell, it is inherently better or more practical, which is an appeal to tradition.
“I’m not going to be a spearhead for it, I don’t want to have to exert more energy than necessary…”
This implies that advocating for Fish would lead to an unsustainable or burdensome effort, which is a slippery slope.
“struggling to search for how to do something because the makers of the shell in their infinite wisdom decided to make a new keyword for something that was already stupid easy to use…”
This is emotionally charged language, framing Fish’s design choices as arbitrary or foolish, which is an appeal to emotion.
“Usually my path of research would require me to look up the issue using fish, find no solution so look up the issue using bash…”
Pika generalizes from their limited experience to a universal claim about Fish’s documentation and community support.
“I found the gains I got using fish didn’t outweigh the losses.”
This argues against Fish based on personal consequences (effort, time), rather than objective merits or flaws.
“Lack of usage was my biggest reason for bailing on it. I do a lot of script sharing with my friend group and I’m not wanting to have to do everything twice in order to be able to share it.”
Why? Pika assumes that Fish’s lack of usage is a valid reason to avoid it, but this is circular: the lack of usage is because people avoid it, not the other way around. The reasoning assumes the conclusion (Fish is impractical) as a premise.
“I had already gotten fairly well first with bash by the time I started using it, and the way fish did it was just super counterintuitive to me.”
This is not just an appeal to tradition, but also an appeal to familiarity. Pika argues that because they are used to Bash, Fish is “counterintuitive,” which is subjective and ignores the possibility that Fish’s design might be more intuitive for others (as Digit claims).
“I came to the conclusion that if I was having to convert parts of it to bash anyway in order to research issues with it, I might as well do it in bash to begin with.”
Pika assumes that because they had to convert Fish scripts to Bash to solve problems, Bash is inherently better. This ignores the possibility that the issues could be resolved within Fish with better documentation or community growth.
“I’m not going to be a spearhead for it, I don’t want to have to exert more energy than necessary…”
This fallacy argues that because something requires effort, it is not worth doing, regardless of its potential benefits.
“I might revisit the shell some day, maybe if it ever becomes super popular…”
Pika shifts the criteria for Fish’s acceptability from “usability” to “popularity,” which is a different standard and not inherently linked to the shell’s technical merits.
“the makers of the shell in their infinite wisdom decided to make a new keyword for something that was already stupid easy to use…”
Here, Pika dismisses Fish’s innovations simply because they are new or different, implying that change is inherently bad.
“Fish has a very small user base in comparison to ZSH and Bash and when I make a script that’s more advanced I tend to want to share it with my friends…”
Pika assumes that because Fish has a smaller user base overall, it must also have a smaller user base among their friends. This conflates a global statistic with a local, personal context.
“LLMs do not like fish shell for bash to fish conversion…”
Pika uses the struggles of LLMs as evidence that Fish is inferior, which is an appeal to authority (LLMs are not infallible or objective judges of shell usability).
“the makers of the shell in their infinite wisdom decided to make a new keyword…”
The sarcastic tone (“infinite wisdom”) preemptively undermines the credibility of Fish’s developers, making any argument in favor of Fish seem unreasonable.
“with bash or zsh, I run into an issue I can just search the issue…”
This assumes that because Bash/ZSH are more commonly used, they are inherently better for problem-solving, ignoring the possibility that Fish’s design might reduce the need for such searches in the first place.
“You must not have to share your scripts with anyone then, right?”
Pika misrepresents Digit’s argument as “Fish users don’t share scripts,” when Digit’s point was that sharing scripts is possible regardless of the shell’s popularity.
“also fair warning, the last 2 topics on fish shell that appeared in this community got nuked after 2 days…”
This introduces fear that the discussion might be censored or deleted, which is irrelevant to the technical merits of Fish.
Implicit in Pika’s argument is the idea that because Bash/ZSH are older and more established, they are inherently better. This is an appeal to antiquity.
“I found the gains I got using fish didn’t outweigh the losses.”
Pika argues against Fish based on personal consequences, not objective merits.
“You must not have to share your scripts with anyone then, right?”
Pika implies that Digit’s advocacy for Fish is hypocritical because they assume Digit doesn’t share scripts. This is a tu quoque if the intent is to undermine Digit’s credibility rather than address the argument.
“the way fish did it was just super counterintuitive to me.”
Pika uses their personal difficulty as evidence that Fish is objectively worse, which is an appeal to personal incredulity.