6 ms·

i wish there was an additional column in the table, that says "what problem does it solve". oh, and 'it's written in rust' does not count.

TheCoelacanth 11mo ago
It seems for most of them, the primary goal is improved UX.
oneeyedpigeon 11mo ago
Many of the entries do include this detail — e.g. "with syntax highlighting", "ncurses interface", and "more intuitive". I agree that "written in rust", "modern", and "better" aren't very useful!
- account42 11mo ago
  Some of this just makes me think that they are compared against the wrong tool though. E.g. > cat clone with syntax highlighting and git integration doesn't make any sense because cat is not really meant for viewing files. You should be comparing your tool with the more/less/most family of tools, some of which can already do syntax highlighting or even more complex transforms.
  - oneeyedpigeon 11mo ago
    Yup, I made that same point in another comment. Out of interest, though, how do you get syntax highlighting from any of those pagers? None of them give it to me out of the box.
    - hulitu 11mo ago
      Pipe it through vim ? /s
drob518 11mo ago
“It’s written in Rust” Actual LOL. Indeed. I was working for a large corporation at one point and a development team was explaining their product. I asked what its differentiators were versus our competitors. The team replied that ours was written in Go. #faceplam
- IshKebab 11mo ago
  That is a differentiator if your competitors are written in Python or Ruby or Bash or whatever. But yeah obviously for marketing to normal people you'd have to say "it's fast and reliable and easy to distribute" because they wouldn't know that these are properties of Go.
  - account42 11mo ago
    You can write slow unmaintainable brittle garbage in any language though. So even if your competition is literally written in Bash or whatever you should still say what your implementation actually does better - and if it's performance, back it up with something that lets me know you have actually measured the impact on real world use cases and are not just assuming "we wrote it in $language therefore it must be fast".
    - IshKebab 11mo ago
      > You can write slow unmaintainable brittle garbage in any language though. Sure. You can drive really slowly in a sports car. But if you're looking for travel options for a long distance journey are you going to pick the sports car or the bicycle. Also I have actually yet to find slow unmaintainable brittle garbage written in Go or Rust. I'm sure it's possible but it's vastly less likely.
      - hulitu 11mo ago
        > Also I have actually yet to find slow unmaintainable brittle garbage written in Go or Rust. I'm sure it's possible but it's vastly less likely. Citation needed. /s
pasc1878 11mo ago
Also using a non GPL license does not count.
dragonelite 11mo ago
A lot of those tools are also usable on windows thats why i like them.

TheCoelacanth 11mo ago

It seems for most of them, the primary goal is improved UX.

oneeyedpigeon 11mo ago

Many of the entries do include this detail — e.g. "with syntax highlighting", "ncurses interface", and "more intuitive". I agree that "written in rust", "modern", and "better" aren't very useful!

account42 11mo ago
Some of this just makes me think that they are compared against the wrong tool though. E.g. > cat clone with syntax highlighting and git integration doesn't make any sense because cat is not really meant for viewing files. You should be comparing your tool with the more/less/most family of tools, some of which can already do syntax highlighting or even more complex transforms.
- oneeyedpigeon 11mo ago
  Yup, I made that same point in another comment. Out of interest, though, how do you get syntax highlighting from any of those pagers? None of them give it to me out of the box.
  - hulitu 11mo ago
    Pipe it through vim ? /s

drob518 11mo ago

“It’s written in Rust” Actual LOL. Indeed. I was working for a large corporation at one point and a development team was explaining their product. I asked what its differentiators were versus our competitors. The team replied that ours was written in Go. #faceplam

IshKebab 11mo ago
That is a differentiator if your competitors are written in Python or Ruby or Bash or whatever. But yeah obviously for marketing to normal people you'd have to say "it's fast and reliable and easy to distribute" because they wouldn't know that these are properties of Go.
- account42 11mo ago
  You can write slow unmaintainable brittle garbage in any language though. So even if your competition is literally written in Bash or whatever you should still say what your implementation actually does better - and if it's performance, back it up with something that lets me know you have actually measured the impact on real world use cases and are not just assuming "we wrote it in $language therefore it must be fast".
  - IshKebab 11mo ago
    > You can write slow unmaintainable brittle garbage in any language though. Sure. You can drive really slowly in a sports car. But if you're looking for travel options for a long distance journey are you going to pick the sports car or the bicycle. Also I have actually yet to find slow unmaintainable brittle garbage written in Go or Rust. I'm sure it's possible but it's vastly less likely.
    - hulitu 11mo ago
      > Also I have actually yet to find slow unmaintainable brittle garbage written in Go or Rust. I'm sure it's possible but it's vastly less likely. Citation needed. /s

pasc1878 11mo ago

Also using a non GPL license does not count.

dragonelite 11mo ago

A lot of those tools are also usable on windows thats why i like them.