Evan Leibovitch said on Sun, 17 Aug 2025 12:27:11 -0400
On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 9:34 AM Steve Litt via Talk <talk@lists.gtalug.org> wrote:
Evan Leibovitch via Talk said on Sun, 17 Aug 2025 02:35:59 -0400
Non-POSIX-compliant by design, it appears to be far more advanced in tab-completion and inline syntax checking than bash.
I saw nothing about POSIX on <https://fishshell.com/> , so what what leads you to say it's non-POSIX compliant?
From their handy (and necessary) guide to bash-to-fish migration <https://fishshell.com/docs/current/fish_for_bash_users.html>:
*"Fish is intentionally not POSIX-compatible and as such some of the things
you are used to work differently."*
Thanks for pointing that out Evan. I had been evaluating it based on some less strident phrases on some other pages of their site. So your quote changes my mind. When somebody boasts "intentionally not POSIX-compatible", I hear "I don't like Unix", and when I hear "I don't like Unix", I ignore everything else they say. I've been using a Unix workalike (GNU/Linux) for 27 years, along with occasional use of OpenBSD, and I like Unix more than PrimeOS, RT-11, VMS, CPM, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, MS-Windows, and even what they had on the Atari ST. As far as the possibility of my misinterpreting "intentionally not POSIX-compatible", anything's possible, but if they weren't anti-Unix, I'd expect them to express it more like "We're POSIX except when it conflicts with the goals of our software". SteveT Steve Litt http://444domains.com