holo-build VS exa

If I may toot my own horn: The thing that grinds my gears the most about software project websites is when they don't clearly say what the thing does, and who this is for. That's why the website for my configuration management tool (https://holocm.org) has two sections, "This is for you if..." and even more importantly "This is NOT for you if..."

wrote my own system package compiler.

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.