THthunderbong·Jun 24, 2026Submission
Bash Line Editor: a command line editor written in pure Bash
5 points · Open discussionakinomyoga
ble.sh
Shell2020–2026
akinomyoga / ble.sh
ble.sh
Bash Line Editor―a line editor written in pure Bash with syntax highlighting, auto suggestions, vim modes, etc. for Bash interactive sessions.
18Distinct people
23Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
4.9KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Bash Line Editor―a line editor written in pure Bash with syntax highlighting, auto suggestions, vim modes, etc. for Bash interactive sessions.
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year23 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2020-03-25 21:04:43 UTC to 2026-06-24 02:27:34 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 7 | 3 | 4 |
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
What Hacker News says
23 sourcesBash Line Editor ― a line editor written in pure Bash
3 points · Open discussionBle.sh: Bash Line Editor with syntax highlighting, auto suggestions, Vim modes
1 points · Open discussionAdopted:
https://atuin.sh/
https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh
https://starship.rs/
These three have made my shell game so much more enjoyable.
In Bash Prompts CollectionAfter being a fish die-hard for like a decade I finally gave up and learned to embrace Bash for its ubiquity. I realized all I cared about in fish was the built-in autocomplete, colorized output, and history management, which I was able to bolt on in short order to Bash.
Now I use ble.sh [1] and Oh My Bash [2] and Atuin [3] and I love it.
This is really a field where I feel standardization is the better path. It's a similar feeling I get when I observe the vast array of notetaking apps I see made and think here is a place where it would be better to pick one FOSS solution and contribute.
[1] https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh
[2] https://github.com/ohmybash/oh-my-bash
[3] https://atuin.sh/
In Elvish, expressive programming language and a versatile interactive shellble.sh: Revolutionize the BASH user experience
21 points · Open discussionhttps://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh
This revolutionizes Bash's user experience.
In Bash's sadly flawed smart (programmable) completionBle.sh―a full-featured line editor for Bash
5 points · Open discussion> The joke here is: All this requires additional scripts / configs.
You mean a single line.
autoload -Uz compinit; compinit
> With those scripts / config there is no difference between shells.
As I wrote in my original comment, bash only does filepath completion most of the time even with third party completion scripts. And I have never seen bash completion provide descriptions alongside subcommands or CLI options.
> https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh
ble.sh is impressive work, but it's a hack that won't be as reliable or compatible without built-in support for programmatic manipulation of the command line buffer in bash. ble.sh works around bash limitations by diverting key input from readline and reimplementing its features. It contains workarounds for specific terminals, and scripts have to be modified to accommodate ble.sh. IIR
Read the rest
C FZF's shell integration required modifications to work with ble.sh.
> Nobody ever could show me even one feature that isn't available in almost all popular shells!
Read the parts of my original comment which you haven't quoted.
> When you tune your ̵c̵a̵r̵ shell it has nice features afterwards…
Only to the extent that the shell lets you. Also, having features bundled in the default installation helps tremendously even if it's not enabled by default.
> I came to the conclusion that zsh is just a stupid hype of "cool kids". It's the same as with the car tuning crowd.
That was uncalled for. If you don't want to use zsh, that fine but don't assume things and throw insults at those who do.
> But please wake me up when there is some real innovation regarding shells!
The original comment was about how zsh compares to bash, not a critique of the unix shell.
> Autocompletion is one thing zsh does better, and that alone is worth it IMO. It can autocomplete things other than filenames and even gives you a short description for each of the subcommands or CLI options in the completion candidates. For the most common commands, this works without even having to install third party completion scripts.
The joke here is: All this requires additional scripts / configs. Whether bundled or not…
With those scripts / config there is no difference between shells.
> Syntax highlighting is useful as well, though that requires the use of a third party plugin. You can detect quoting errors, unmatched braces, missing commands, incorrect filepaths before hitting enter. It's indispensable in an interactive shell because that's where you write convoluted one-off one-liners.
https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh
> In
Read the rest
general, zsh is extensible and offers more capabilities than bash.
Nobody ever could show me even one feature that isn't available in almost all popular shells!
> But to feel the difference, you need to configure it and enable the nice features.
Yeah sure. When you tune your ̵c̵a̵r̵ shell it has nice features afterwards…
That's true for any shell as I see it.
---
I for my part don't like Unix shell. Even after 20 years of usage (as since then Linux is my only OS).
Also I've never understood what's the case about zsh. Nobody could ever answer the question why it's anyhow "better" or even show features not available elsewhere.
I came to the conclusion that zsh is just a stupid hype of "cool kids". It's the same as with the car tuning crowd.
A truly better shell would be much different than a Unix shell. There are some experiments out there but nothing really convincing.
So I continue to stay with the not so cool default. As it's most compatible and available everywhere.
But please wake me up when there is some real innovation regarding shells!
Nice, there's also ble.sh -- a bash replacement of readline that has zsh/fish-like syntax colors and completion. It is actively developed and the maintainer has implemented 2 features I've requested in a matter of hours.
If you want to check it out: https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh
(Still, I personally believe these features are overrated and don't actually bring in more usability or comfort to the command line experience. For instance, ctrl+r kills the need for suggestions and instead of selecting files scrolling through them with your fingers, you can select them using your eyes?)
In Bash 5.2I stay with bash due to its 100% availability on all systems I use, with https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh I got all the auto-complete I need too.
In Fish 3.4.0Many of the features are also achievable with pure bash with ble.sh (https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh).
In The fish shell is amazingBash Line Editor (ble.sh) – a full-featured line editor written in pure Bash
12 points · Open discussion> bash is far behind concerning interactivity.
Is it really? Projects like ble.sh [1] seem to pull off advanced features like syntax highlighting and enhanced completion with pure bash without the need for reimplementing a whole shell from the ground up.
1.: https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh
In Nsh: A fish/bash-like Posix shell in RustShowing the 15 most recent of 23 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.