11–20 of 71 posts
I personally find that fzf is better because I can see where I'm going to end up before I accept the operation.
I guess that's not quite as advanced as z or fasd though!
Is there some functionality that `z` offers that fzf doesn't? I have a keybinding that essentially does `open $(fd | fzf)`, and that is how I go _anywhere_ in my file system. Completely changed how I use the shell. I personally find that fzf is better because I can see where I'm going to end up before I accept the operation.
Is there some functionality that `z` offers that fzf doesn't? I have a keybinding that essentially does `open $(fd | fzf)`, and that is how I go _anywhere_ in my file system. Completely changed how I use the shell. I personally find that fzf is better because I can see where I'm going to end up before I accept the operation.
Besides z being much faster (looking through a sorted list of directories visited instead of recursively walking from the current directory) your snippet looks from the cwd
Even in the worst cases, at least with my i7 NUC and using fd instead of find, it's less than 500ms to load the entire list into fzf.
z is Google (just give me what I want based on a short description of its name).
z is amazing.
I’m not sure I want the fundamental building blocks of my field to be “helpful” like this. I’m much more a fan of naming it easier and faster for computers to do what I want, than I am of computers trying to divine what I want without my explicitly asking for it at this level.
I'm mildly skeptical of any shortcuts that are based on "learning habits". I've already gotten enough of user interfaces that move items based on use all the time (The spotify playlist list is the worst offender - playlists move up and down in rank after every use, so there is never any spatial memory, startled every time).