deadgrep VS delta

Deadgrep (uses ripgrep and evil-collection has a binding) takes me to my happy place -

https://github.com/Wilfred/deadgrep

theres a package for this that’s god tier: deadgrep

this is cool too Wilfred/deadgrep: fast, friendly searching with ripgrep and Emacs

rg.el or deadgrep: Emacs interfaces to ripgrep, a grep-like tool that is very fast. This lets us search across a large number of files for a pattern of text. The disadvantage of searching for text is that if you are looking for the method called foo and there are hundreds of them that exist, it can be hard to know which one you really want. On the other hand, at the scale and complexity that you are talking about, I can imagine that more IDE-like tools just start failing.

Yes in this area (text search) there is many alternatives. Wilfred Hughes (author of deadgrep) has listed them in: https://github.com/Wilfred/deadgrep/blob/master/docs/ALTERNATIVES.md

Anyone interested in this should also check out deadgrep: https://github.com/Wilfred/deadgrep

Deadgrep does this, IIUC (I use ripgrep.el instead, but I think deadgrep does something like what you want)

deadgrep is an interface to ripgrep.

Thanks for the difftastic & zoxide tips.

However, I've been using this git pager/difftool: https://github.com/dandavison/delta

While it's not structural like difft, it does produce more readable output for me (at least when scrolling fast through git log -p /scanning quickly

View on GitHub

I'm currently waiting on the integration between Delta and Difftastic:

https://github.com/dandavison/delta/issues/535

Difftastic now has JSON output, whic should make it much easier to build this.

I'm surely in the minority here. I've been using Emacs for almost a decade now, but I just can't get into the Magit workflow. I've tried several times, but always end up going back to Git on the command line. I have dozens of aliases, shell integrations, a nice diff viewer[1], etc., and interacting with Git has become muscle memory. I can commit, cherry-pick, rebase, bisect, fix conflicts, etc., in a fraction of the time it would take me to navigate Magit's UI. I'm sure with enough practice, a Magit user could do this more quickly and efficiently, but honestly, with some custom-built porcelain, Git's UI is not so bad. Though this could very well be Stockholm syndrome after using it for such a long time...

For whatever reason, Magit's opinionated workflows never clicked with me. A part of it is the concern that it will do something weird to my repo that I'll then have to waste more time undoing manually. I usually don't trust sugary wrappers around tools. And another is the fact I don't use Emacs on all machines, and setting up Git on a remote system is just a matter of copying over my config and some shell integrations.

Also, on a more personal note, I find the cultish fanboyism whenever Magit is brought up slightly offputting. Does anyone have anything bad to say about it? No software can realistically be this infallible. :)

[1]: https://github.com/dandavison/delta

For looking at diffs I still prefer the command line though, and use delta to view diffs between commits or branches.