GCC Picks Up Meaningful Bash Completion Support To Help With Compiler Options

[andreano]

Call me when Bash gets on par with Fish's history completion. I can't use Bash.

[Vistaus]

I really like the look of fish. It looks superior to bash. However I stick with bash because:
1. I already know it.
2. It's good enough for what I use it for.
3. It's pretty much installed by default on every distro and it's often the default shell.
4. Even if it's not installed by default it's almost certainly available in the default repositories by default even for the most obscure distros.
5. Even if I used fish, I'd likely have to have bash on my system anyway either for the system to function normally, or to run other people's shell scripts.
6. Many distros these days (eg Ubuntu) give a nicer out-of-box bash experience. Auto-complete is already setup and working for most apps on the system.
7. Third party software vendors are more likely to provide bash auto-completion support than fish auto-completion support.
8. Bash is a POSIX compliant shell.

What I said about bash and fish also applies to POSIX in general. There's a lot of areas where the POSIX design could be improved IMO. However; the cost of improving these areas really outweighs the cons of losing compatibility, familiarity and all the other *ity things

4. fish is also available in most distros, even obscure ones.
5. I can run other people's shell scripts just fine from fish, no need for bash.
6. While bash is often the out-of-the-box default shell, fish does have auto-completion built-in. So you install fish and you have auto-completion, even a toddler could set up fish lol.
7. Third-party software vendors: true. BUT fish adds auto-complete support themselves for third-party software. For example, Solus didn't add eopkg auto-completion support to fish, but fish added it themselves. And that goes for lots of other third-party software as well. And on top of that, fish has history completion, which I use all of the time! bash doesn't even have that feature.

And fish is waaaay easier to customize than bash, esp. with cli tools like oh-my-fish.

But to each their own I'm not trying to convince you or anything, I just corrected a few of your points.

[cybertraveler]

5. I can run other people's shell scripts just fine from fish, no need for bash.

You can run POSIX shell scripts and shell scripts with Bash extensions?

[Vistaus]

You can run POSIX shell scripts and shell scripts with Bash extensions?

Yes, I can and do so very often with fish.

[cybertraveler]

Yes, I can and do so very often with fish.

Cool

Can you symlink it at /bin/sh and /bin/bash and generally expect stuff to just work?

[JanC]

Can you symlink it at /bin/sh and /bin/bash and generally expect stuff to just work?

No, fish is not bourne/POSIX shell compatible.

You can run POSIX sh or bash scripts if they have the right “shebang” line and a POSIX shell and/or bash are also installed, but that's it.

[cybertraveler]

No, fish is not bourne/POSIX shell compatible.

You can run POSIX sh or bash scripts if they have the right “shebang” line and a POSIX shell and/or bash are also installed, but that's it.

idk what Vistaus is talking about then.

[pal666]

$ man gcc

There's some options which have a double-dash prefix.

you can call single-dash options with double-dash regardless, just try it

Very few though and because it doesn't follow the normal conventions you can't do stuff like stack multiple single letter options behind a single dash (which you would be able to do if it did follow the convention).

you can't stack them because you can't stack options with parameters. which parameterless single letter gcc options you feel urge to stack(you need at least two of them) ?