sd VS exa

https://github.com/chmin/sd: "sd uses regex syntax that you already know from JavaScript and Python. Forget about dealing with quirks of sed or awk - get productive immediately."

It would be interesting to test the ~1.5GB of JSON the author uses for the benchmark against sed, but there are no details on how many files nor what those files contain.

When trying something relatively small and simple, sd appears to be slower than sed. It also appears to require more memory. Maybe others will have different results.

   sh # using dash not bash

It depends on the scale of the project but man, if you can't build a simple CRUD app in your preferred stack and deploy it in some fashion (even if it's just a binary posted on some website, kinda like Exa) then that's just disappointing...

Can compile to a single binary to build tools like exa

Try https://github.com/ogham/exa and exa -T -L2 command . It will generate a good folder structure tree to update the question

Some of us don't want all of GNU's utilities; just on an as-needed basis. They're not as needed as they once were.

Many of these utilities have been rewritten in Rust and have more modern features.

For example, instead of ls, I use exa [1]. Or ripgrep [2] instead of grep.

[1]: https://github.com/ogham/exa

[2]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep

fish: A very fast shell with various customization options to streamline daily commands. I discovered it through this post by @caarlos0, where he provides more details about performance and the differences between fish and zsh. Additionally, I use some CLI utilities like delta, exa, and ripgrep. Here's my dotfiles for fish.

Hi! I use this: https://the.exa.website, and the package to this: https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/exa/

I still use exa for listing files in the terminal. It's a modern replacement for ls with a lot of useful features. With icons, colors, and git integration, it makes listing files much nicer.