telescope-fzy-native.nvim VS nixpkgs

I recommend the fzy native extension for telescope. https://github.com/nvim-telescope/telescope-fzy-native.nvim it’s still not quite as fast as the old fzf solution but I don’t notice it unless I’m working on some huge legacy codebase.

This plugin provides precompiled libzf libraries packaged into a sorter for Telescope, similar to telescope-fzf-native.nvim and telescope-fzy-native.nvim. This gives the speed improvement of native code, and the benefits of the zf algorithm inside telescope for all pickers.

fzy-lua-native similary doesn't use fzy, it's a matcher based on the algorithm that fzy uses. This is actually the same matcher used under the hood in telescope-fzy-native.

Are you using the fzy-native extension?

Is it faster than telescope-fzy-native (fzY)? Does it provide better results?

I want to give a little update on the speed problem, since this is coming up more or less on every Telescope thread. Having bugged the developers opening regular GitHub issues, it seems that you can get a consistent jump on search speed by using the native sorter

I don't think so. The article is probably intended for the Nix community, so the author doesn't need to convince HN that something is going on. If as an outsider you are interested then you need to look into it yourself, the community has no obligation to make their internal conflicts legible to the outside world.

As an outsider myself, it certainly looks like something is going on as more than 20 Nixpkg maintainers left in a week: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=label%3A%228.has%3...

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=neon-sunset

I see two signers in the top 6 displayed on https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/graphs/contributors

For a single file script, nix can make the package management quite easy: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/doc/languages-f...

For example,

```

Yes, Nix doesn't actually ensure that the builds are deterministic. In fact it works just fine if they aren't. There are packages in nixpkgs that aren't reproducible: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss...

I'm not familiar with Bazel, but Nix in it's current form wouldn't have solved this attack. First of all, the standard mkDerivation function calls the same configure; make; make install process that made this attack possible. Nixpkgs regularly pulls in external resources (fetchUrl and friends) that are equally vulnerable to a poisoned release tarball. Checkout the comment on the current xz entry in nixpkgs https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/tools/comp...

NixOS uses a monorepo and I think everyone's love it.

I love being able to easily grep through all the packages source code and there's regularly PRs that harmonizes conventions across many packages.

Nixpkgs doesn't include the packaged software source code, so it's a lot more practical than what Debian is doing.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs

In this specific case, nix uses fetchFromGitHub to download the source archive, which are generated by GitHub for the specified revision[1]. Arch seems to just download the tarball from the releases page[2].

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/3c2fdd0a4e6396fc310a6e...

[2]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/ib...