5 ms·
I've found that fzf has replaced all uses of find for me except in scripts. fzf has the benefits of being bound to a single key binding and showing me results a
by z1mm32m4n 9y ago
I've found that fzf has replaced all uses of find for me except in scripts. fzf has the benefits of being bound to a single key binding and showing me results as I type, rather than after the command runs.
- pmoriarty 9y agofzf is fine for searching just for filenames, but it does nothing else that find does. It can't even search specifically for directories, as far as I can see, nevermind searching for files/dirs with certain permissions, ages, etc. It's also uselesss for non-interactive uses such as scripting. I like fzf, but it's really not anywhere close to a complete find replacement.
- sa46 9y agoYou're right that fzf doesn't replace find. Fzf is just an interactive, filtering tool. You can pipe anything into it. find is a common way of populating it with data. I suspect the GP meant that fzf replaced the pattern 'find |xargs $binary' for small interactive use cases. It's much nicer to do '$binary <invoke fzf>'. I use fzf the same way with key bindings to select directories and files powered by find.
- igemnace 9y agoIt's not a find replacement at all, even! fzf just actually calls find by default, so a naked call to fzf will actually give you the same results as find | fzf. Search specifically for directories, that's find -type d | fzf.
- jpz 9y agothanks v much for recommendation