| ▲ | Show HN: I made an ls alternative for my personal use(github.com) |
| 96 points by triyanox 21 hours ago | 88 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | triyanox 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Thanks for all the feedback! Let me clarify a few things about lla.
The most amazing part of this project wasn't just building another ls alternative - it was the incredible learning journey. Building a systems tool in Rust while implementing a plugin architecture taught me more in a few weeks than months of reading could have.
Yes, it does more than traditional ls, and that's intentional. The plugin system came from scratching my own itch of constantly switching between different terminal tools. Each feature added was a chance to dive deeper into systems programming and Unix internals.
The performance still needs work, and the documentation could be better. But that's the beauty of open source - you ship it, learn from the feedback, and keep improving. Building in public is an incredible way to level up your skills.
For anyone considering a similar project: pick a common tool you use daily and try reimagining it. You'll be surprised how much you learn along the way. |
|
| ▲ | imoverclocked 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Did anyone here use Genera on an original lisp machine? It had a pseudo-graphical interface and a directory listing provided clickable results. It would be really neat if we could use escaping to confer more information to the terminal about what a particular piece of text means. Feature-request: bring back clickable ls results! Bonus points for defining a new term type and standard for this. |
| |
| ▲ | rphln 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's already `ls --hyperlink` for clickable results, but that depends on your terminal supporting the URL escape sequence. | | |
| ▲ | db48x 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is nice, but a poor substitute for what Genera was doing. You see, Genera knows the actual type of everything that is clickable. When a program needs an input, objects of the wrong type _lose their interactivity_ for the duration. So if you list the files in some directory, the names of those files are indeed links that you can click on. Clicking on one would bring up a context menu of relevant actions (view, edit, print, delete, etc). If a program asks for a filename as input then clicking on a file instead supplies the file object to the program. Clicking on objects of other types does nothing. | | |
| ▲ | Rendello 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's one aspect I prefer in playing with TempleOS over Linux. The rest of the command line is a bit of a pain, with no history, C-as-a-shell, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | westurner 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | $ man ls | grep '\--hyperlink' -A 1
--hyperlink[=WHEN]
hyperlink file names WHEN
|
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Feature-request: bring back clickable ls results!
Doesn't your desktop (or distro) have a graphical file manager? On KDE it's Dolphin, which ex-Windows users absolutely love. I don't know what it would be on Gnome or other desktops. | |
| ▲ | mbivert 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe some aspects of the Plan9 UI? (rio/9term, plumber; acme as well). You should be able to get this to work on Unix with plan9port. | |
| ▲ | yjftsjthsd-h 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not really that, but have you tried ranger? |
|
|
| ▲ | mellosouls 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I clicked on this (without noting "github") expecting an essay on the joys of building an alternative to ls. This is basically a Show HN without a summary I think. fwiw: https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html |
|
| ▲ | vunderba 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sounds like a fun project. However, from the readme: Efficient file listing: Optimized for speed, even in large directories What exactly is it doing differently to optimize for speed? Isn't it just using the regular fs lib? |
| |
| ▲ | jeffbee 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | On my system it uses twice as much CPU as plain old ls in a directory with just 13k files. To recursively list a directory with 500k leaf files, lla needs > 10x as much CPU. Apparently it is both slower and with higher complexity. | | |
| ▲ | triyanox 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Will definitely prioritize optimization in the next releases. Planning to benchmark against ls on various systems and file counts to get this properly sorted. | |
| ▲ | inquisitive-me 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But it’s written in rust so it’s super fast. Did you take that into account when running your benchmarks? /s |
|
|
|
| ▲ | monroewalker 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Other than colorization, what are people getting out of ls replacements like this? I've recently started using ranger which might replace my ls usage for the most part since it not only shows everything in the directory but has vim like shortcuts for filtering, sorting, and searching the directory as well as previewing files and entering other directories |
|
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One slept on filesystem cli tool on linux is `gio`. So it comes with glib2. But today glib2 is a dependency of vte, polkit, pipewire, ffmpeg, the entire gtk ecosystem,... you get the point. So you can basically depend on it being there on most linux installs, especially desktop. Checkout the man page: https://www.mankier.com/1/gio highlights: - showing progress in `cp` equivalent - Easy cli interface to freedesktop trash (!) - tree command - filesystem changes monitor (inotify wrapper) |
|
| ▲ | eviks 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Excellent new idea re plugins, a lot of these tools are too inflexible ! |
| |
| ▲ | cb321 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | `lc` mentioned elsethread [1] was always extensible with plugins for formatting and file-typing (but also always supported libmagic-based file-typology). There are other fairly distinctive ideas in `lc`, actually.. the README has a list. While I like it and it's a good idea, I think the reality is that developers capable enough to write shared library/DLL plugins are more likely to just submit PRs and make such stuff built-in but maybe optional. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42229841 | | |
| ▲ | eviks 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Always" is just 4 years? Lc is also one of these new tools > more likely to just submit PRs and make such stuff built-in but maybe optional. Which are more likely to just be rejected by the more conservative maintainers of the tool. That's the empowering beauty of plugins - no such barriers | | |
| ▲ | cb321 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your tone is rather disputatious/critical, but we have literally no dispute here. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bornfreddy 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I use git command line interface. Not because it is good (it isn't) or because I enjoy suffering (I think I don't), but because it is a standard on all the machines that have, you know, git. What good is a ls alternative if I need to install it everywhere I need ls? I'd prefer using the standard ls even if it is not ideal. But maybe that's just me. |
| |
| ▲ | mshockwave 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is also one of the reasons I write C++ with vim without any auto-completion nor fancy plugins (I do use syntax highlighting though, but I think it comes by default with vim nowadays), as well as using GNU screen -- not every machines install tmux by default, surprisingly. In case I need to login into some random Linux box, I'm sure I'll be almost as productive as I am on my own machine. | | |
| ▲ | deredede 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I assume this is tongue-in-cheek, but I don't think the comparison works at all. I spend maybe 1% of my working hours (being generous) using `ls` and something like 50% (likely more) using my editor. If there is some alternative to `ls` that makes my `ls` workflows 2x faster, my productivity increases by 0.5%. If I use a sub-optimal editor that makes my workflow 2x slower, I lose 25% of my productivity. When I need to login to a remote box, I am also very likely to need to use `ls` since I am less familiar than on my own machine, whereas I am unlikely to do any sort of heavy development work (typically I just need to edit a couple configuration files, or do some git operations). | |
| ▲ | easton 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’ve been on machines in the last few years that didn’t have screen either. Maybe it was a minimal install or something, but I specifically remember having to install it to get some long running stuff going. (Thinking it was Ubuntu server, but guessing someone will correct me) | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tmux vs screen is an odd one; it kinda feels like screen was included in the era when people were actually trying to make the default install on servers kind of nice to use with a functional set of assumed programs. And now, it is fairly widespread just due to legacy. Nowadays, and possibly for the better (every line of code is a potential bug and every bug is a potential vulnerability) it seems like systems don’t want to include this sort of stuff. So, I’m sure if the decision were made today, tmux or screen, tmux would win. Unfortunately, “none” seems like the real future option… |
|
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Even ls isn't standard on all machines. GNU ls is different from BSD ls. | |
| ▲ | eviks 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's the point of suffering everywhere if you don't enjoy it? It's not like using a better alternative prevents you from knowing how to use ls, but only in those cases where there is no better alternative |
|
|
| ▲ | p2detar 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Coloring files of the same file-type is my favorite feature. Is the extension used to group them or a MIME-header parser? I guess the extension, since it is faster. |
|
| ▲ | dbacar 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Categorization and hashes seem to be good ideas, yet you could do all of these with other tools already.
You could be knowing the tool 'exa', a similar ls alternative. Just wanted to mention. |
|
| ▲ | hobs 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This github page doesn't say anything about why it turned out to be amazing, seems like a fun side project. |
| |
| ▲ | fellowniusmonk 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, why use this instead of ls? What makes it worthwhile as a daily driver? | |
| ▲ | netsharc 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, talk about hiding the headline... I see a screenshot that looks like the output of ls, ok it has colors, and some filenames have "!!" behind it. Great success? | | |
| ▲ | triyanox 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Haha! Aren't all rust rewrites about colors take `bat` for example!
Btw "!!" are from the git plugin, a quick way to see my workspace git status |
|
|
|
| ▲ | iwontberude 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The things I take for granted. This is a breath of fresh air! Way to rethink the fundamentals! |
| |
|
| ▲ | elashri 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There seems to be a lot of projects that is now competing to replace ls (for people preferences) For reference, those are the ones I am familiar with. They are somehow active in contrast to things like exa which is not maintained anymore. eza: (https://github.com/eza-community/eza) lsd: (https://github.com/Peltoche/lsd) colorls: (https://github.com/athityakumar/colorls) g: (https://github.com/Equationzhao/g) ls++: (https://github.com/trapd00r/LS_COLORS) logo-ls: (https://github.com/canta2899/logo-ls) - this is forked because main development stopped 4 years ago. Any more? Personally I prefer eza and wrote a zsh plugin that is basically aliases that matches what I have from my muscle memory. |
| |
| ▲ | iroddis 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve tried a few of these, but most of them seem to be following the trend of folding other shell functionality into one tool. Searching for contents (find + grep -H, or ripgrep), filtering (grep), sorting (ls does it natively, or you can use sort, sort -h for sorting human readable sizes), the list goes on and on. I guess this is a mini lament that many of these tools are moving away from the Unix philosophy of do one thing well, and make it easy to chain. And a last very small lament that BeOS didn’t succeed, and their filesystem-as-a-database approach didn’t become more standard. | | |
| ▲ | burntsushi 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can still chain ripgrep. I specifically designed it so that you can chain it just like you would a normal grep. It does indeed also include other functionality that might traditionally be left to other tools (like filtering files). But this is nothing that GNU grep wasn't already doing itself anyway. IMO, it's better to view the Unix philosophy as a means to an end and not an end to itself. And IMO, it's important to weigh the benefits of coupling to the user experience. | | |
| ▲ | fsckboy 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >view the Unix philosophy as a means to an end and not an end to itself it won't be a means to an end any more if you don't preserve it, so not breaking that aspect of it has to be one of your ends. if you use it to take ls to a new place but that place is not within the ecosystem, it will be an evolutionary dead end, or worse, the first meteor in the meteor storm that ends all life. current/traditional unix may not be the be-all/end-all, but replacing it/changing it requires viewing it comprehensively and changing all the tools at once or having a plan to. A good example of this is Plan9 | | |
| ▲ | burntsushi 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know what you're trying to say and I don't see how it's in conflict with anything I've said. | | |
| ▲ | fsckboy 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | >not an end to itself it is an end to itself. the reason it's a means to an end is because that was its end goal. in being a means to an end, it is an end (its end) unto itself, opposite to what you said, imho |
|
| |
| ▲ | L3viathan 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think ripgrep specifically is counted in the comment you reply to as a tool that _does_ do one thing well, and that one should use it (or grep) in combination with an ls, instead of giving ls filtering abilities. | | |
| ▲ | burntsushi 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I suppose. But I wanted to point out that ripgrep couples functionality, specifically in contradiction to the Unix philosophy. And actually, many command, including "traditional" tooling, so as well. The point is that many pay lip service to the Unix philosophy as if it were an end. But it isn't. |
| |
| ▲ | sudahtigabulan 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You can still chain ripgrep. I specifically designed it so that you can chain it just like you would a normal grep. Headings on when isatty and off when piping the output put me off when I first tried ripgrep. I don't expect the tools to change their output format on me. Luckily, you made this behavior configurable, so I'm a happy convert now. | | |
| ▲ | burntsushi 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don't expect the tools to change their output format on me. You probably do! If you've ever used `ls`, then it does exactly this. | | |
| ▲ | sudahtigabulan 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you mean the ANSI color stuff, yes - I do expect these to disappear :) I meant the "shape" of the output. It just doesn't follow the principle of least surprise. edit: you probably meant the columns. I forgot about that, I haven't parsed ls(1) output in ages ;) | | |
| ▲ | burntsushi 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes. The columns. The point is that commands have been changing their output format, not just their colors, based on tty for ages. So the criticism you lodge against ripgrep also applies to some of the most core commands you probably use daily. I would be quite surprised if you didn't rely on this without even knowing it. Even a simple `ls | wc -l` relies on it. I say this because it's tiring to see folks lament about this feature in ripgrep as if it's something new that ripgrep does. It's not. It's a well established idiom among Unix command line tools. | |
| ▲ | volemo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn’t “don’t parse ls” like the third commandment of Unix? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | eviks 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They don't do one thing well since it's all text, not structured data, which makes chained analysis a challenge, which leads to the desire for integration | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | ls is tabular data, and you can format it (ls -1, ls -l, ls -w, plus sorting, field formatting, and more), and you can cut/parse/format in a standard way. Every field sans the filename is fixed length, can be handled with awk/cut/sed according your daily mood and requirements, etc. etc. So, ls can be chained very nicely, which I do every day, even without thinking. You don't need to have a "structured data with fields" to parse it. You just need to think it like a tabular data with line/column numbers (ls -l, etc.) or just line numbers (ls -1). So, as long as ls does one thing well, it's alright. Ah, some of the "enhanced" ls tools can't distinguish between pipe and a terminal, and always print color/format escape codes to pipe too, doubling the fun of using them. So, thanks, I'll stick with my standard ls. That one works. | | |
| ▲ | eviks 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You don't need to have a "structured data with fields" to parse it. You do if you want to have nice things like being able to format your output without having to worry about breaking the dumb tools down the pipe, which can't sort the numbers they don't see: - 2.1K (this isn't the same as the second)
- 2.1K
- 2.1M Also, why do I need to count columns like a cave man in 'sort -k 5' instead of doing the obvious "sort by size"? > print color/format escape codes to pipe too A problem that would disappear with... structured data! > Ah, some of the "enhanced" ls tools so use the other "some" that can? | | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > which can't sort the numbers they don't see Then you sort at the point you can see the numbers and discard them later. > Also, why do I need to count columns like a cave man in 'sort -k 5' instead of doing the obvious "sort by size" awk can sort the columns for you. Plus, ls can already sort by size. Try "ls -lS " for biggest file first, or "ls -lSr" for smallest file first. Add "-h" to make human readable. > A problem that would disappear with... structured data! No. A problem that would disappear with "a small if block which asks which environment I'm in". If you're in a shell "-t" test in sh/bash will tell you that. If you're coding a tool, there are standard ways to do that (via termcap IIRC). Standard UNIX tools are doing this for decades now. IOW, structured data is not a cure for laziness... > so use the other "some" that can? Yes, because their authors are not that lazy. | | |
| ▲ | eviks 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Then you sort at the point you can see the numbers and discard them later This sort of human overhead is only needed to compensate for the deficiencies of the data structures > ls can already sort by size That's the benefit of integration you're arguing against with your deficient piping suggestions > IOW, structured data is not a cure for laziness... It is precisely what good design is for - it reduces the need for various dumb workarounds that bad design requires, which means you can be more lazy and avoid said workaround > Yes, because their authors are not that lazy. This just ignores the argument, which was "some better new tools don't do that" isn't relevant when some better new tools also do that |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Retr0id 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | vanilla ls has never been particularly chainable - https://mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs | | |
| ▲ | machinestops 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | A lot of this post hinges on the fact that newlines in filenames were legal, and that people wrote shell without handling quoting correctly. While quoting (as well as ls altering filenames) is still an issue, find -print0, read -d '', and similar are no longer neccessary. Newlines are now forbidden in filenames: https://blog.toast.cafe/posix2024-xcu | | |
| ▲ | threePointFive 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Newlines are now forbidden in filenames No. To quote that article > A bunch of C functions are now encouraged to report EILSEQ if the last component of a pathname to a file they are to create contains a newline This, yes, makes newlines in filenames effectively illegal on operating systems strictly conforming to the new POSIX standard. However, older systems will not be enforcing this and any operating system which exposes a syscall interface that does not require libc (such as Linux) is also not required to emit any errors. The only time even in the future that you should NOT worry about handling the newline case is on filesystems where it's is expressly forbidden, such as NTFS. | | |
| ▲ | machinestops 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most utilities that create files are encouraged to error on newline filenames, which makes this effective illegality stronger. The post also discusses the future of this encouragement, which is turning it into a requirement. > However, older systems will not be enforcing this Eventually, newlines in filenames will go the way of /usr/xpg4/bin/sh. I'd like to note that up until this point, there hasn't (and isn't) been a fully POSIX compliant way to do many shell operations on newline containing filenames. They are already effectively unsupported, and the standard that adds support also discourages them from being created and used. The best way to handle them up until this point has been to not use sh(1). |
| |
| ▲ | CJefferson 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Linux isn't POSIX compliant, and as far as I know has no plans to ban newlines in filenames, or even add an option to disable newlines. | | |
| ▲ | machinestops 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In past, there have been Linux-based operating systems that have been certified as Single Unix Specification compliant, and part of said specification is POSIX. I would imagine GNU and Busybox and Musl will be willing to implement the changes proposed by POSIX 2024, which inevitably leads down the road of newlines being banned. | |
| ▲ | pyuser583 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I know Linux allows newlines in filenames, but every time I hear it I want to drink. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | from-nibly 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you like that philosophy check out nushell. They go pretty hard core on that and they can because of structured output | |
| ▲ | amelius 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree with this. If they want something that is easy to use in a non-scriptable way, maybe they should replicate Norton Commander instead. | | |
| |
| ▲ | bawolff 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tbh, i dont understand why people want to rewrite ls of all things. Like don't get me wrong, if they had fun, that's great. But all i use ls for is getting a list of files. I barely ever even use the -la options. There just doesn't seem like a lot of room for improvement in something so simple. | | |
| ▲ | benrutter 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the standard ls doesn't have much in terms of color/icons, so its simplicity probably makes it a great side project for improving on. Not a big surface area, some easy improvements. A whole lot less stressful than rewriting grep (although I'm massively grateful Burnt Sushi did such a crazy thing) | | |
| ▲ | triyanox 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks @benrutter! You nailed it - ls is like the "Hello World" of system tools. Simple enough that you won't tear your hair out, but meaty enough to learn a ton.
Started with "ooh, pretty colors!" and before I knew it I was deep in filesystem APIs and terminal wizardry. Way less scary than tackling grep.
Sometimes the best projects are the ones where you can't mess up too badly... well, unless you accidentally delete everything while testing |
| |
| ▲ | roywashere 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well, recursive display is nice, I guess, as well as searching on partial filenames | | |
| ▲ | mbivert 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Has been roughly doing the job since the 70s (?): $ du -a | grep blbl
|
| |
| ▲ | abnry 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I barely ever even use the -la options. Certainly I use these less than plain "ls," but digging through hidden files and folders and looking at timestamps is very important for me. | | |
| ▲ | karmakaze 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's the first thing I noticed in the options, it has modified date but not create or access date (listing or sorting) that I could tell. Of course it could be added, or I could just use `ls`. | |
| ▲ | dangus an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I use ls -la via the ll alias exclusively. I find it far more readable to my eyes than plain ls. Hidden files are almost always of interest to me since my job involves configuring servers. | | |
| ▲ | cb321 an hour ago | parent [-] | | https://github.com/c-blake/lc shows all files, including hidden files (starting with dot aka dot files) by default, suppressible in output with -xdot or a shell/internal alias to the same effect. It helps to start with a more extensible/less built-in idea of "file type". "odd permissions" are another type that might interest someone, for example, such as "setgid but not group-executable" or "writable but not readable" or etc. Yes, I know one can also use `find` or etc. for that, but there's no crime in there being >1 way to see things and, for some people, colors can make things really stand out - as can sort order which is another more color-blind possibility in `lc` as well as the simple filter-or-not of ls -a/-A. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | treve 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's a rite of passage. I had some colorful 'dir' alternatives on MS-DOS 5 and eventually made my own with Turbo Pascal. Easy & fun afternoon project | |
| ▲ | triyanox 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thanks for the great list! Yep, eza and g are fantastic - I actually use eza daily and love how g handles git integration.
What made me excited to experiment with lla was playing with the plugin architecture. While these other tools have great built-in features, I wanted to see if I could make something where the community could easily add their own capabilities without touching the core code. Kind of like how vim and neovim handle plugins.
Got inspired by how people keep building these ls alternatives to scratch their own unique itches. Figured why not make it easier for everyone to scratch their own itch through plugins? Still very much an experiment, but it's been fun seeing what's possible! | |
| ▲ | vunderba 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Eza is great. I was pleasantly surprised at how nice the mime type icons meshed with the terminal. | |
| ▲ | medv 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also “walk” is great for interactive navigation. - https://github.com/antonmedv/walk | |
| ▲ | cb321 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | lc: https://github.com/c-blake/lc (in Nim). | |
| ▲ | bastardoperator 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I also used eza to replace the tree command with the --tree flag. |
|
|
| ▲ | yasser_kaddoura 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have these aliases for various purposes: # Different options to search for files # da=36 cyan timestamps alias ls="EZA_COLORS='da=36' eza --time-style=relative --color-scale=age" alias lsa="ls --almost-all" # ignore . .. alias l="ls --long --classify=always" # show file indicators alias la="l --almost-all" # Tree view alias ltreea="ls --tree" alias ltree="ltreea --level=2" # Sort by time or size alias lt="ls --long --sort=time" alias lta="lt --almost-all" # lsd is faster than eza alias lss="lsd --long --total-size --sort=size --reverse" alias lssa="lss --almost-all" lla seems to go beyond what ls should do for some reason. Why show git and code complexity info? Just use tools dedicated for these things, otherwise, it will be an unmaintainable mess. If you can solve a problem easily with external tools, then there's no reason to add a feature for it. |
| |
| ▲ | tejohnso 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's a great list. I have a similar list and the aliases grow out of frequently used arguments. For example, I found myself often doing an ls -Altch and so lsth was born. I find that aliases that or born of frequently used arguments are easily remembered. Over time that one grew to include a pipe to head because most of the time I just want to see the top 20 or so most recently modified files in the directory. |
|
|
| ▲ | zvr 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Creating command-line utilities is nice, but I personally lament the lack of man pages when people write something new. |
| |
| ▲ | triyanox 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's the amazing part I'm talking about the learning experience you get from weeks of working on something like that is better than reading countless documentations | | |
| ▲ | zvr 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Oh, of course the development is fun and exciting and a learning experience. But before inviting others to use something, please think of how to make its use more clear. After all, I assume you post this so that people use it, not only admire your coding skills. There is a group of people who have learned to read and rely on man pages. For example, the top-level README says: > -s, --sort <CRITERIA>: Sort by "name", "size", or "date" OK, does "date" refer to creation date, modification date, access date?
I can understand "size", but does it produce smallest-first or largest-first? It might not matter if... ah, no, there is no -r/--reverse flag.
Can I have more than one "criteria" (since the plural is used)? Getting answers for such questions now means I have to go read the code in src/args.rs and follow to the implementation of the various functions. And in a few days, when I have the same questions again and I have forgotten the options, I will again have to dive into the code. Please consider providing a short man page. It documents the "calling interface" to your program and makes it easier to use. I usually start writing one even before implementing the whole thing, to clearly articulate what I expect the program to do. | | |
| ▲ | triyanox 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fair critique about the documentation - this needs proper attention.
Writing a man page first is a solid approach - it forces clear thinking about the interface before implementation. I'll prioritize adding complete documentation for all options and the plugin system.
The code works, but without good docs it's not truly useful. |
| |
| ▲ | seb1204 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | While a man page or good documentation is maybe not too intriguing for you I consider it essential for other users to adopt.
Maybe there are new or modern ways to create man pages that can be stimulating for your learning experience? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | voidUpdate 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I know its only for personal use, but I've never had any problems with ls not being "high-performance" enough... |
|
| ▲ | tambourine_man 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| brew support? |
| |