3 ms·
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 m
by enricozb 6y ago
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.
- Graziano_M 6y agoBesides 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
- enricozb 6y agoThis is a fair point. I usually only "jump" from directories that have at most 500k files, and the median is way closer to ~500 files. 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.
- Graziano_M 6y agoYep, that's fair. I use fzf along with z. I use z usually to switch projects (and I work in Go, so many are in GOPATH and annoying to CD to manually) but I use fzf both inside and outside of vim to open individual files.
- JohnBooty 6y agoI personally find that fzf is better because I can see where I'm going to end up before I accept the operation. I agree that's a must-have feature. Luckily z does it as well. Type `z foo` and hit tab. If there's a single match, "foo" will be expanded in place to the proper path. If there are multiple matches, you can choose from a list of paths. So, no mystery navigation (unless you want it) -- you can always see where you're going.