Pika

lol, its insane the inaccuracy of the LLM in that. It made me chuckle. I can give it 1 and 2 as I gave it already, but for the sake of the chuckle I’ll start from the bottom to top:

• 25: its my opinion, can’t be a fallacy as it’s based off opinion, it’s not meant to change anyone’s mind or anything, its stating how I felt.
• 24: I’m not assuming anything, it was a question, the LLM can’t interpret it apparently.
• 23: it’s ignoring the critera/information I had already supplied prior to it thinking its based off objective
• 22: Again, its based off the fact that more users = better ability to find documentation and sharing it. this isn’t fallacious in nature.
• 21: this was just a warning cause I’ve seen it myself (I have 6 posts in the past 4 weeks that were technical and ended up being nuked)
• 20: see 24
• 19: my experiences are somehow an appeal to common practice? Like that’s my experiences with it
• 18: unrelated to the current discussion but I can see why it would have it
• 17: again my actual experiences with it that doesn’t make it a fallacy
• 16: I love that it’s trying to say I don’t know my friend group’s shell usage as if I don’t share scripts with them already.
• 15: Has nothing to do with the argument and is actually a misdirection in itself.
• 14: I’ve always argued both metrics, I don’t see where it’s seeing a goalpost moving here… lol
• 13: I said the exact opposite of what it’s claiming. I acknowledged that it would require effort and that wasn’t something I wanted to do
• 12: I didn’t assume it was better in this case, I stated since it was easier to find scripts, it was less work to do
• 11: I never claimed the stated assumption here, I stated why I did. It was counter intuitive to me, that doesn’t mean it’s not intuitive to others, that itself is also an illicit minor
• 10: changes the comment away from my personal experience and tries to redirect it into a reason why others shouldn’t use it.
• 9: Yes I agree it’s a generalization, that was the entire point of that, to show that most of my experiences shown that, and as such why I don’t use it.
• 8: Invalid, I’m not attacking you, I even acknowledged that I can see why some people use it, I just can’t
• 7: This isn’t a slippery slope as it’s accurate. There is less info available on fish shell, just due to the length of amount of time it’s available.
• 6: Invalid claim
• 5: I can kind of see this, but it’s not like I don’t think it doesn’t have it’s merits, its just not for me.
• 4: Such evidence is bad on it’s own, but when supported by facts it’s valid
• 3: I don’t think I understand this linking to authority but LLM’s definitely struggled converting bash to fish for me.
• 2: already explained this one in parent post
• 1: same as 2

I love LLM’s at times, I can understand some info they give but, man do they not know how to read dialogue.

Copies of the twilight zone and books on multi-dimensional theory such as imagining the 10 dimensions

argumentum populum would not apply here, since that one is based off populous opinion and I’m making the logical guess that since fish is the least used shell of the three we have talked about that it’s usage would be proportional as well. This might not be the case obviously which was why I was asking if you did share your scripts. 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.

If you were looking for a argument from fallacy case, your best fallacy would be likely I believe appeal to probability, would be the close but not match as I am assuming most of your friends are not using fish, but I’m also basing it off the knowledge that it has a significantly smaller user base which makes it more likely. or possibly an illicit minor which would be the path of “My friends don’t use fish, so it’s unlikely that your friends use fish” which would potentially be valid, but again I am questioning the case not stating it as an exact, but since my initial question was based based off statistics and experience, I would go with the first one.

but back to the topic:

Documentation wise? I have read it. The examples are nice don’t get me wrong, but its layout needs work, the examples need better real world use cases and 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 is just a hard pass for me (like I said I had already learned bash prior to this, whereas you had not learned bash). Not to mention with bash or zsh, I run into an issue I can just search the issue. 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 and sometimes it wouldn’t even solve the issue at hand and required just rewriting it completely. 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, then have to convert it to fish. Sometimes the issue would work fully in bash, and just not in fish. 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.

I agree with you, the more people using it the more examples and documentation will be available as a result, but I’m not going to be a spearhead for it, I don’t want to have to exert more energy than necessary, and I found the gains I got using fish didn’t outweigh the losses. Like I said I might revisit the shell some day, maybe if it ever becomes super popular, but for now I have removed it and ported my scripts back to bash again.

ammendum: btw LLM’s do not like fish shell for bash to fish conversion. I had tried it a handful of times resolving an issue (deepseek had the most success of them) but it was almost always a try 3 or 4 times, get something that has nothing to do with it, or uses something that fish shell doesn’t support, and then have to clear the context or find another path for resolution.

ammendum2: also fair warning, the last 2 topics on fish shell that appeared in this community got nuked after 2 days, so it’s possible this entire thread will disappear as well(hopefully not but it seems to be a reoccurring issue).

That was the exact opposite with fish. 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.

I couldn’t get into the overall design of how it looked and I disliked how command substitution and the built in’s worked, Combined with the fact that it’s a lesser used shell, so there’s less information available on it. I just couldn’t do it.

You brought up a point though. That makes me ask. You must not have to share your scripts with anyone then, right? 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 and having them install a whole new shell just to run a script is just not helpful to me. ZSH is close enough to bash in compatibility that, generally speaking, if I want to share it, I can use zsh And then convert the minor discrepancies. Where with fish I have to redo the entire script.

The latest right-to-repair law includes exemptions for marine vessels, aviation, motor vehicles, medical devices, certain safety and security equipment, and video game consoles

Ah so mostly useless for your common everyday items that you would want to repair yourself then. Got it.

edit: well reading the actual I guess a good chunk of household items /could/ be repaired but, the bill seems to have no teeth, and I dislike how loose it is when it comes to actually providing replacement parts. They don’t even require releasing schematics or diagnostic tools.

This is a good way of putting it. It’s essentially ZSH with Autosuggest/complete and a theming agent. At least visual-wise.

When you get into the scripting and the hot keys aspect of it, they reinvent the wheel and everything is different., Like for example ,!! and other bangs(I think that’s the right word?) like that are not valid on fish, And everything to do with variables is different from adding to your path to setting variables to creating functions. Also checking your error code is going to be different as well as it doesn’t follow the $x style inputs and doesn’t support IFS and globbing works differently.

TLDR; fish is nice, but If you use it unless you want to relearn an entire type of language, keep your scripts on bash or zsh

or if you wanna see the bigger differences fish has a dedicated bash transition page