> if performance wasn't as important as you seem to imply, it's very unlikely that ripgrep would have gotten popular given that performance (and filtering) are

> if performance wasn't as important as you seem to imply, it's very unlikely that ripgrep would have gotten popular given that performance (and filtering) are its two more critical features. I'm not saying performance isn't a feature, but if one want performance they shouldn't use grep, and use ripgrep instead. There was a need for a high performance grep replacement, and you filled it perfectly. But now that ripgrep exists, I don't think it makes much sense for a grep perfect clone to seek max performance, since it will definitely fall behind ripgrep no matter how hard they tried (at least because they can't ignore files or restrict the kind of regular expressions they support by default).