fzy

> it supports my keystrokes You know that there is basically a standard set, imposed by Windows in about 1986 or something and also supported in GNOME 2, MATE, Xfce, LXDE, etc etc.? I am more interested in if it supports them. I mean, I don't know what your set are, and I am not for a moment saying there's anything wrong with them, but there are standards for this stuff, used heavily by millions of blind computer users for example. > Have you considered the possibility you are so set in your ways that you are neglecting new and useful tool? Could be. I am a professional assessor of, and commentator on, this stuff, though. I mainly use a desktop I switched to in 2011. :-) Before that, I changed in 2004, after a change in 2001, after a change in 1995, after a change in 1992, after one in 1989, etc. etc. I mean I am an old pharte, fair call

>Fzf is written in C That would be fzy : https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy

Am I the only one who prefers FZY ? https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy

fzy[1] is a less bloated alternative, written in C. fzf is neat, but it does too much. [1]: https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy

> Rust is really the main thing in my end-user stack I'm waiting on since fzy, bat, exa, Can you expand further? % cargo install bat Finished release [optimized] target(s) in 2m 21s Installing ~/.cargo/bin/bat Installed package `bat v0.16.0` (executable `bat`) % file $(which bat) ~/.cargo/bin/bat: Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64 % cargo install exa Finished release [optimized] target(s) in 1m 21s Installing ~/.cargo/bin/exa Installed package `exa v0.9.0` (executable `exa`) % file $(which exa) ~/.cargo/bin/exa: Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64 I don't know what you mean by [fzy], as it appears to be a C program, not Rust. See also: • The tracking issue for tier 1 support [tracking] • My intermediate README with instructions [readme] [fzy]: https://github

There's a lot of these pickers and they are indeed similar. I've been using https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy since it's not fullscreen and has a really good matching algorithm.

fzy[1], which is written in C, seems to be slightly faster: $ hyperfine --warmup 2 -r 10 'rg --files | fzy -e hello' 'rg --files | fzf -f hello' Benchmark #1: rg --files | fzy -e hello Time (mean ± σ): 153.6 ms ± 57.9 ms [User: 399.2 ms, System: 96.9 ms] Range (min … max): 85.9 ms … 244.3 ms 10 runs Benchmark #2: rg --files | fzf -f hello Time (mean ± σ): 210.5 ms ± 61.6 ms [User: 443.3 ms, System: 90.9 ms] Range (min … max): 123.3 ms … 315.5 ms 10 runs Summary 'rg --files | fzy -e hello' ran 1.37 ± 0.65 times faster than 'rg --files | fzf -f hello' [1] https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy

Thanks! - Percol (Python): https://github.com/mooz/percol - Peco (Go): https://github.com/peco/peco - fzy (C): https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy

Many interested in autojump could probably get what they want out of nice, pure https://github.com/rupa/z Here's an alternative to fzf, for comparison's sake: https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy

The logical follow-up question would be; how does it compare to fzy? :) https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy

I put "set editing-mode vi" in my ~/.inputrc to enable basic vi keyboard shortcuts in readline-based programs like bash. If I'm using bash on a machine I don't control, I can type "set -o vi" at the bash prompt to get the same thing temporarily, and that's usually the first thing I type. I also like to use rlwrap[1] to get readline editing and command history on terminal apps that aren't readline aware and don't have history of their own. Most of the time, though I spend in zsh, which is not readline-based but has its own readline-like capabilities. There I have ^R bound to reverse history search, and ^E to edit the current line in my $EDITOR. In addition to this, I use fzy[2] (which I prefer over fzf[3]) to do fuzzy searches over my shell history with something like: history 0 | perl -p -E's/^\s*\S+\s*//' | sort -u | fzy --lines=$LINE

If you like fzf you might be interested in fzy: https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy

Also check out fzy: https://github.com/jhawthorn/fzy