I don't know about that. The "old" way still seems clear to me, and it is much shorter:
Surely there are cases where nu wins over fish, but this doesn't seem to be one of them :)
I've been looking at nu myself for a bit, but I still haven't found a strong enough reason to switch (from bash + fish as interactive shell).
@PawelTurlejski I'm very proficient with awk, but having the option of putting the more verbose Nu in a script I'd still do it every time. Awk wins on code golfing but I suspect to most engineers it'd feel more gibberish compared to Nu still.
And, even being proficient with awk, its less of a mental burden for me to type out the Nu version even though I've only used Nu for a few weeks!
@mitchellh I've never touched Nu (been on fish for years), but I can still understand your snippet. That's nice.
However, there's way more reading (and typing) involved with Nu. That's a notable cost, to me at least.
Nu does seem more "scalable" though. I mean, going from one-liners to longer scripts surely works out better then with Bash.
But then, you need Nu installed everywhere, while Bash is already there...
Anyways, it will be interesting to see where your Nu experiment goes :)
Mitchell Hashimoto
Pawel Turlejski