lsd VS exa

lsd

If you use lsd there is a --total-size option

ls aliased to lsd

Just in case people don’t get the sarcasm here https://github.com/Peltoche/lsd

lsd

lsd is faster & more customizable than exa

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.