Interesting but I haven't seen any killer feature yet that makes me want to get accustomed to this shell. Command level completion for arguments has existed in zsh, aliases being a sort of dictionary is kind of interesting but not too useful (just some familiar syntactic sugar). Mutliline input isn't new, csh can do it, bash can do it, so can zsh. Admittedly the ability to duck type and evaluate numerical expressions with "let" is kind of nice but nothing too special. Regexes for globbing files might be a new one, certainly a useful one that I'd otherwise be writing special awk or python to handle.
To be fair, the flattering comparison table should come with things like "Natively supported by the OS" or "Large community support", for which xonsh would obviously be at a disadvantage compared to other shells.
Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.<p>Also nice to see it respects XDG basedir.<p>I'll be trying it out today. I've been using zsh for a very, very long time and it's been really hard to get me to switch off it. This looks exciting.<p>My only concern is with ease of installation, especially on eg. debian servers. But that's out of the hands of the project :/
Looks good, but can you take more time in the asciinema showcase? The typed variables section for example goes so fast that I can barely read the results, never mind get into the process behind it!<p>I've made a lot of use of the pause button, but it would be great to just be given a little more time to think.
The domain at the end of the video (<a href="http://xonsh.org" rel="nofollow">http://xonsh.org</a>) doesn't seem to point to your site (<a href="http://xon.sh" rel="nofollow">http://xon.sh</a>) (and doesn't work, either…). Just FYI, that if you share the video, you might want to share the link, too.<p>(or, for xon.sh, it may be time to update the video. I presumed you moved to the fancier domain at some point.)
The xonsh Xontrib [1] open pull request sounds handy, allowing devs to extend the functionality of xonsh beyond what is provided by default.<p>As an example, gitsome [2] is powered by xonsh and might have benefitted from Xontrib.<p>I've found that xonsh + prompt-toolkit [3] is a nice combo that helps autocomplete the following:<p>* Shell commands<p>* Files and directories<p>* Environment variables<p>* Man pages<p>* Python (REPL too)<p>[1]: <a href="https://github.com/scopatz/xonsh/pull/829" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/scopatz/xonsh/pull/829</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/donnemartin/gitsome</a><p>[3]: <a href="https://github.com/jonathanslenders/python-prompt-toolkit" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/jonathanslenders/python-prompt-toolkit</a>
I'm baffled with the effort people put for writing _g_ and not writing _it_. Now I'm incredibly fond of path completion, but I guess it shouldn't be the shell to do that, but the terminal, because the function is generic, i.e. whathever shell one uses, it is beneficial. Emacs/Comint does that, and it's comfortable and predictable.
I'm not really well-versed in what happens when you replace a shell and then run your programs with it, but can someone ELI5 how does this get away with making 'env variables typed'.<p>How is the program like 'ls' going to see a variable that is an array when originally it was a string delimited with ':'?
Looks really good, it's Yet Another Fantastic Shell!<p>I'd love to use it, really. But as long as it's not shipped by default with a popular Linux releases, I will not.
My customers, Telcos, don't approve any "non standard" software in their server rooms.
Sounds very useful. I'll give this a try right now on my personal machine and maybe even use it for some build scripts at work later if I like it.
That's lovely! Would really love some docs on how developers can extend this!<p>Am I missing something to enable smart autocomplete?<p>$ git c<tab> completes to a folder, starting with c.<p>$ git cl<tab> does nothing.<p>(OS X, installed with pip.)
It is nice to have new projects in the world.<p>Personally, I just don't get what it solves that can't be solved with shells and programming languages pre-installed on every machine already. From a personal workstation/development box shell (I used GNU Emacs for dev/mail/usenet for over a decade), I can understand but for servers this may not be appropriate.<p>It is "cool" but I'd argue that most geeks don't even fully understand installed tools on their current machines, so this is "interesting" at best. It was someone's project to learn programming?<p>I may be being negative, but "meh".