You're right. I got confused by the C++17 "upgrade" argument (which doesn't make any sense to me).

The following point made me laugh, though:

> Being written in Rust will help fish continue to be perceived as modern and relevant.

Is this tongue-in-cheek or meant seriously?

> Is this tongue-in-cheek or meant seriously?

Let’s assume it was originally written in FORTRAN. Would you think it was a joke or serious?

The writing is on the wall for C++. They’re a little ahead of the curve, but rewriting in a well-liked modern language will likely benefit the health of the project’s contributor pipeline for years to come. There aren’t a lot of people choosing to learn C++ (or FORTRAN) these days.

Fortran has a modern version that codes are written in today in the scientific world. Heck, I write fortran myself and did so last night now that I realise it.

I think you’re missing the point.

Do users still exist? Sure. Is it a healthy, thriving ecosystem with a promising future, increasing mindshare, and serious advantages over the alternatives? Not so much.

I believe it's meant seriously in that being written in Rust it's more likely to attract contributions from people doing it in their free time.

I have only read the discussion when the rewrite was first proposed, but I believe that was mentioned as an advantage.

> being written in Rust it's more likely to attract contributions from people doing it in their free time.

Ah, because there are no Rust jobs? duck

I'll take the bait.

The increasing number of Rust jobs ask you for previous Rust experience, if only on open-source or hobby projects.

The fishshell.com website starts with:

> Finally, a command line shell for the 90s

When in doubt, assume the Fish team is being tongue-in-cheek.