13 ms·

We need more zero config tools

84 points by abahlo 2y ago

keyle 2y ago
I don't mind configuring my tools to work for me. For example I'm a polyglot, inevitably I work with a lot of tools, IDEs, and programs. I've rigged everything so I have a lot of continuity; and context switching isn't a nightmare. For some I use VSCode, IntelliJ, Micro or others. They all have similar(ish) shortcuts. It means I can transition so much quicker without grinding my teeth. My point is, I don't mind configuring my tools. What I do mind, is having ease of transfer between environments, so that my configuration comes with me. I love IntelliJ's config to cloud, it somewhat just works. It allows me to change something on the work laptop that will apply at night on my home machines. VSCode does the same now (it used to require a plugin and github). Micro and other tools use a ~/.config/subfolder which also works, I use git to pass stuff around various computers, with various degrees of success. My .zhsrc / .profile is carried around and I have all my 2-3 letters aliases that do complex things, so I don't need to remember everything. This is a powerful way to be very productive very easily. And if you forgot how it works, just read the file. The amount of time where I saw a senior professional waste time re-googling the same thing over, or fumbling around their shell history has boggled my mind. ref. [1]* If you're a professional, chances are you're going to cart your configs and settings with you for many years to come. So make it as portable as possible. Even my lazygit is configured. One time, I got a new job, I left it as default... and forced push changes by mistake (because it's not turned off by default and very easy to fat finger it), and that caused a lot of grief. So be careful about acting proud in being 'zero config'. I'd recommend being efficient, not a purist in search of minimalism. It also shields you from upstream software changing their default on a whim. [1] https://xkcd.com/1205/ https://xkcd.com/1205/
- ericvsmith 2y ago
  For managing config files I use yadm https://yadm.io/ https://yadm.io/, which I learned of on HN. Among other great features, it lets me tailor settings per OS (Windows, Mac, Linux) and per client. And my settings are all in git, so they’re easy to save and copy around, and they’re all in one place, not dependent on each tool to know how to save their settings on some server.
  - mway 2y ago
    Have you used Chezmoi (https://chezmoi.io https://chezmoi.io) before? I've been using that for a few years now; I'd be curious to understand how YADM compares.
    - ericvsmith 2y ago
      I have not used chezmoi, thanks for the pointer. From the comparison chart it looks similar to yadm. It looks like go vs. bash is the biggest difference. It’s occasionally handy to debug yadm’s bash script, although it’s been years since I had to do so. I’ll take a deeper look.
    - AndyKluger 2y ago
      A major reason I stick with yadm, aside from that it works great and offers me no trouble, is that for basic usage I can just reuse my existing familiarity with the git interface, replacing "git" with "yadm" in the command.
mattlondon 2y ago
I know this will be unpopular but I try to live a zero-config life. I just live with the defaults 99% of the time. I prefer not to be beholden to some special keyboard map or shell config or that essential plugin that does something very niche that you could simply not live without any more, because what if you do need to live without it? If you ever change machine or do pair programming or whatever where you are not using your highly-tweaked config, and you are essentially a frustrated jibbering wreck and barely more competent than a 3 year old using a computer for the first time because there is only vi and not Emacs, or your "essential" key bindings are not there or your "essential" plugins are not there or horror of horrors it is vanilla bash and not zsh with your 9000 line config file. These days I have learnt to abandon the configs, and learn to love the default life. Just open a vanilla laptop and guess what, it already has "your" config since they are all the defaults! Spend that mental energy and time on something else and get stuff done.
- kunley 2y ago
  Not always makes sense, especially when the defaults are counterintuitive. Example: I never understood why tmux folks have chosen different key bindings than screen, as their product was meant to replace screen, not to be run like one inside another. But the brain has been wired over the years. Then I am always remapping tmux to ctrl-a. There are also other examples when defaults have been made to satisfy some perceived but unrealistic expectation.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    I can't speak to specifics of tmux/screen but, generally, one approach to this problem is to pick tools with the defaults you want. If a tool doesn't have good defaults, pick one that does. Sure, you have to be pragmatic about this—if no tool has good defaults, just pick the one with the best (and the best support for configuration...)
    - ulbu 2y ago
      so instead of configuring a single tool, produce multiple tools of different configurations? you need to put those system parameters somewhere.
hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
Zero config tools are quite excellent. I include quite a few of them in https://github.com/hiAndrewQuinn/shell-bling-ubuntu https://github.com/hiAndrewQuinn/shell-bling-ubuntu , although I also include high-config stuff in there at well so people can compare and contrast - you've got `hx` right next to a fully decked-out `nvim`, for example.
d_sc 2y ago
Article links to Julia Evans’ blog post on fish as well, which is a good read. https://jvns.ca/blog/2024/09/12/reasons-i--still--love-fish/ https://jvns.ca/blog/2024/09/12/reasons-i--still--love-fish/
bpx51 2y ago
Another tool that I can't live without, which requires no configuration at all is fzf, you can easily and (fuzz)yly find files in your system, move into directories, search in your command history, search active processes and kill them and a lot more. Give it a try
- Zababa 2y ago
  fzf (https://github.com/junegunn/fzf https://github.com/junegunn/fzf) is really great. Very useful for providing a quick and easy user interface. For example, I use it to fuzzy find inside git branches to have an "improved checkout". I do that since at work branches are usually named "<project>-<issue number>", it's faster to search for the issue number.
  - xk3 2y ago
    I do this too! function zg --argument branch if test "$branch" = - git switch - else git checkout (git branch --list | fzf --query $branch --select-1 --exit-0 | string trim) end end
kkfx 2y ago
Well, zero-config generally means the tool is "modern", meaning it's defaults are current with the current tech/prefs of the most. Does not mean anything else. The issue here is that people tend to customize so they do not like their customization breaks because someone else have made new defaults. Aside the real "no config", no need to read a manual etc was tempted, historically the most successful who tried it was Microsoft and we know how bad it is... My take is that yes, we need sane defaults, but also full customization possible, a thing essentially absent in modern software.
vouaobrasil 2y ago
I don't mind configuration when the configuration is discoverable through a few menu options. But when you have to crawl through man pages and the options are endless like Vim, it starts to get annoying. I liked that when I was in my teens because it was cool, but not now. Too boring. That's why I switched from Vim to VS Code with the Vim plugin. It's sane by default.
BartjeD 2y ago
So essentially we need more sane defaults? I've read about sane defaults before, it used to be a best practice haha.
- nasretdinov 2y ago
  It's not just defaults though. E.g. fish comes with actual integrations with e.g. git, whoch requires both some code and some configuration. So IMO it goes much further than that: the best tools are the ones that do actually solve most common issues straight of the box, even if it takes more effort from developers.
pitah1 2y ago
This was also my philosophy behind creating insta-infra (https://github.com/data-catering/insta-infra https://github.com/data-catering/insta-infra). Single command to run any service. No additional thinking required. Too many times I've become very frustrated when an installation doesn't work the first time or it has some dependencies that you haven't installed (or worse, you have a different version). Then you end up in some deep rabbit hole that you can't dig out from. Now for each tool I make, it must have a quick start with a single command.
assanineass 2y ago
Although I agree it’s tough making a strong point when comparing Vim to Helix, it’s like saying you prefer Ubuntu over Arch since it’s nicely preconfigured.
lionkor 2y ago
I've "riced" Linux machines, Windows machines, different editors, terminals, file browsers, shells, web browsers, even commandline tools, to fully customize my own work machine. I used to install cool tools, new non-standard programs and made edits to config files. Now I basically just install Arch (personal machines) or Debian (servers), and leave almost everything at default. I have a handful of necessary tweaks for i3, mostly keybinds (Meta+O for emoji keyboard, a different runner, etc.) which I can reasonably remember, look up, or copy-paste to new machines. I used to have an intricate kickstart.nvim-based neovim setup, but I don't use it anymore. I like tools which have configs, but I try not to touch them, so I don't have to care about which machine I'm on too much. I can ssh into any Linux or Unix-adjacent machine and just get work done. Visual Studio Code and Zed/Zeditor are wonderful with good defaults, which I don't need to change. I adjust the font of all my terminals and editors to Fira Code, but that's pretty much it. The defaults are usually sane, and, if they're not, I look for a different program. This is why I appreciate ArchLinux so much, too; They keep the default configs for most tools, and (almost) only make sane adjustments if any. I've given up on customizing the hell out of my machine(s). If customizing your own machine(s) is your hobby, go for it, but if you want to be productive, consider getting used to default keybinds, default naming, typing out `ls -l` instead of `ll`, and getting the job done. You can own and fully control your machine without exercising this control just because you can, everywhere.
- braggerxyz 2y ago
  So true. I've done it in the past just to get bitten in the a* by my intricate configs or more the lack of them months or sometimes even years later. Working with the standards is the way to go, life is to short to work with VI and intricate configs.
- w0m 2y ago
  I feel called out.
rcxdude 2y ago
Sensible defaults are very much appreciated (and I've also adopted the philosophy of trying to avoid depending on elaborate customised configurations), but zero-config is not a good goal in and of itself. Very frequently I've found a configuration option is the difference between a tool that does and doesn't work at all for me.
- zokier 2y ago
  but on the flip side not all tools need to work for all people
rty32 2y ago
When I develop tools/real products for others, I try to come up with the best defaults and provide the best experience out of the box, because most people don't ever touch settings. On the other hand, I think it is important to have almost as many settings as technical possible/feasible and try to make them discoverable, and encourage people to customize -- although maybe not spend too much time on that. One setting that completely changed how I use vim: relative line number (and the "smart" version). I learned about it recently and realized I had wasted a stupid amount of time in the past decade since I used vim. Should that be the default? Probably not. But people do need to customize the editor to make it the most efficient and productive for themselves. I just wish relative line numbers are marketed more, and there is a way to gradually discover settings that people may want to tweak.
Mashimo 2y ago
I would love it more open source tools and projects would subscribe to the "Easy to learn, hard to master" / sane defaults / zero config approach. I used to love the photo editor DarkTable. I would spit out very close to camera Jpeg by default, but I could deep dive into some pictures if I wanted to. I don't know what changed, but with every update it just got harder to get something I liked from the pictures. I stopped using it. I already use fish (with temux) and will take a look at zellij.
- klez 2y ago
  I have some problem with DarkTable too. What are you using now instead?
  - Mashimo 2y ago
    I started to use CaptureOne from the high seas. Yarrr. The only program I acquired that way. I just got to frustrated with DarkTable. It's really good at just spitting out images that look decent without changing a dial.
nitinreddy88 2y ago
I try to use most of the tools (linux) as standard as possible without customisation including shortcut keys. The problem is, once you are in remote sever/dev ops boxes, you can't have fancy tools or fancy shortcuts. It's better to train your mind to standard tools as much as possible.
- Parae 2y ago
  Just because we don't have access to great tools when working in remote server doesn't mean we shouldn't use them locally. I use Vim with lots of plugins on my personal projects, I use IntelliJ at work. But if I need to ssh and vi, it's ok, I know how to it efficiently. With Fleet or VSCode you can easily use your dev environment with your tools, plugins, shortcode to work on remote codebase via SSH.
  - benterix 2y ago
    I agree, and fzf is a good example - on my local box it speeds up my reverse search, whereas when I'm on a remote server I use the same Ctrl+R I used for decades, and the final result is similar so no additional cognitive load.
- exe34 2y ago
  or bring your tools with you. or use them remotely - for example tramp mode in emacs. there's no need to walk barefoot your entire life just in case some day your shoes break and you have to hobble to the store.
  - Asraelite 2y ago
    Agreed. With how easy it is to copy over a standalone binary for things like rg and fd, I find it hard to justify taking the time to learn the much more clunky standard tools. I don't need to access servers often though. I'm sure for others the situation is different.
- viraptor 2y ago
  That only really applies at a small scale. At some point you either stop logging into them, or do it just to run some automation. I can't remember the last time I did something non trivial in a remote terminal now. (Apart from my home server which has everything I want)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eviks 2y ago
Charitably, yes: great defaults are indeed great, and we do need more tools to drop the unergonomic awfulness of the defaults made up decades ago. But literally, no: it's practically impossible for a very wide variety of tools to have great defaults. Case in point - that you have zero config in fish and helix is just you, there are also people who have plenty of OMF plugins or use a totally different keybinding scheme, so hundreds of lines of config
aerzen 2y ago
Another relatively new tool that contrasts complex music players: https://github.com/talwat/lowfi https://github.com/talwat/lowfi
mofosyne 2y ago
Or maybe we could have 'layered' configs with shared community layers? Thus in that sense it becomes a series of defaults good for people in specific context like different countries or professions.
aorth 2y ago
I'm a zsh user with a slightly complicated configuration. Fish or something else more modern with sane defaults could lure me away some day. I want to like helix. I've been using vim for twenty years. I suppose I have to put in some work to make the switch... no time and limited mental capacity (plus muscle memory). I have looked at Zellij and decided I like my simple tmux workflow better (it's configured to behave like GNU screen because I have twenty years of muscle memory for that too). Regarding Lazygit, I actually enjoy using standard git. I am pretty good at branches, rebasing, and other things.
- w0m 2y ago
  agree with you on all fronts there aside from lazygit; I see it as a different tool that makes it a bit easier to inspect change trees with less typing. I can do it on straight git-cli; but 100 characters typed vs 5 makes my fingers ache thinking. Same reason I have fugutive/diffview installed in nvim.
habitue 2y ago
I believe these config heavy tools happen because they are very old, and changing the default behavior breaks things and makes people mad. So they just add a new config option to enable some convenience feature, and then another and another... Soon new people come and want to use the tool and they're told they have to add a config file turning on a half century of features that seem obvious (cough font-lock-mode) In web development and app development, user interfaces change constantly, so why don't they fall prey to this as much? I think one thing is many of the tools we're talking about like shells and command line tools are actually APIs as well. Scripts break if you change the interface. If a web interface changes, maybe a scraping script fails, but otherwise nbd. This is probably the biggest failing of the model of your shell being both a user interface and a programming language you write long-lived and critical scripts in. As a user of the shell you want syntax highlighting and nice features like paging etc, but as a script writer you want the behavior to never change. In hindsight, maybe the way to do it is similar to apt-get vs apt get, where the former is for scripts and the latter is intended to be a ui that makes no backwards compatibility guarantees.
- senkora 2y ago
  > where the former is for scripts and the latter is intended to be a ui that makes no backwards compatibility guarantees. Also known as plumbing vs porcelain commands.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > In web development and app development, user interfaces change constantly, so why don't they fall prey to this as much? Because they're happy to just break things and let the user deal with it. Which is (one of the reasons) why I prefer the CLI tools:) Though I also agree that there's an element of mixing UI/API.
II2II 2y ago
In some cases, the question is: what are sane defaults? Take emacs or vim. I know a lot of people use them as code editors, and think of them as code editors, but they are really general purpose text editors. It is going to be next to impossible to create a set of defaults that everyone, or even a majority of people, will agree are sane. (That said, they could be easier to configure.)
- zakm 2y ago
  I think this is a great point that most people forget. If you build something specifically for editing code you can do something cooler than vim/emacs and I've been working on that specific idea: https://youtu.be/owuuFxDBQh4?si=tqYi-RqvFQa6kI8h https://youtu.be/owuuFxDBQh4?si=tqYi-RqvFQa6kI8h

84 points by abahlo 2y ago

I don't mind configuring my tools to work for me. For example I'm a polyglot, inevitably I work with a lot of tools, IDEs, and programs. I've rigged everything so I have a lot of continuity; and context switching isn't a nightmare. For some I use VSCode, IntelliJ, Micro or others. They all have similar(ish) shortcuts. It means I can transition so much quicker without grinding my teeth. My point is, I don't mind configuring my tools. What I do mind, is having ease of transfer between environments, so that my configuration comes with me. I love IntelliJ's config to cloud, it somewhat just works. It allows me to change something on the work laptop that will apply at night on my home machines. VSCode does the same now (it used to require a plugin and github). Micro and other tools use a ~/.config/subfolder which also works, I use git to pass stuff around various computers, with various degrees of success. My .zhsrc / .profile is carried around and I have all my 2-3 letters aliases that do complex things, so I don't need to remember everything. This is a powerful way to be very productive very easily. And if you forgot how it works, just read the file. The amount of time where I saw a senior professional waste time re-googling the same thing over, or fumbling around their shell history has boggled my mind. ref. [1]* If you're a professional, chances are you're going to cart your configs and settings with you for many years to come. So make it as portable as possible. Even my lazygit is configured. One time, I got a new job, I left it as default... and forced push changes by mistake (because it's not turned off by default and very easy to fat finger it), and that caused a lot of grief. So be careful about acting proud in being 'zero config'. I'd recommend being efficient, not a purist in search of minimalism. It also shields you from upstream software changing their default on a whim. [1] https://xkcd.com/1205/ https://xkcd.com/1205/

ericvsmith 2y ago
For managing config files I use yadm https://yadm.io/ https://yadm.io/, which I learned of on HN. Among other great features, it lets me tailor settings per OS (Windows, Mac, Linux) and per client. And my settings are all in git, so they’re easy to save and copy around, and they’re all in one place, not dependent on each tool to know how to save their settings on some server.
- mway 2y ago
  Have you used Chezmoi (https://chezmoi.io https://chezmoi.io) before? I've been using that for a few years now; I'd be curious to understand how YADM compares.
  - ericvsmith 2y ago
    I have not used chezmoi, thanks for the pointer. From the comparison chart it looks similar to yadm. It looks like go vs. bash is the biggest difference. It’s occasionally handy to debug yadm’s bash script, although it’s been years since I had to do so. I’ll take a deeper look.
  - AndyKluger 2y ago
    A major reason I stick with yadm, aside from that it works great and offers me no trouble, is that for basic usage I can just reuse my existing familiarity with the git interface, replacing "git" with "yadm" in the command.

mattlondon 2y ago

I know this will be unpopular but I try to live a zero-config life. I just live with the defaults 99% of the time. I prefer not to be beholden to some special keyboard map or shell config or that essential plugin that does something very niche that you could simply not live without any more, because what if you do need to live without it? If you ever change machine or do pair programming or whatever where you are not using your highly-tweaked config, and you are essentially a frustrated jibbering wreck and barely more competent than a 3 year old using a computer for the first time because there is only vi and not Emacs, or your "essential" key bindings are not there or your "essential" plugins are not there or horror of horrors it is vanilla bash and not zsh with your 9000 line config file. These days I have learnt to abandon the configs, and learn to love the default life. Just open a vanilla laptop and guess what, it already has "your" config since they are all the defaults! Spend that mental energy and time on something else and get stuff done.

kunley 2y ago
Not always makes sense, especially when the defaults are counterintuitive. Example: I never understood why tmux folks have chosen different key bindings than screen, as their product was meant to replace screen, not to be run like one inside another. But the brain has been wired over the years. Then I am always remapping tmux to ctrl-a. There are also other examples when defaults have been made to satisfy some perceived but unrealistic expectation.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  I can't speak to specifics of tmux/screen but, generally, one approach to this problem is to pick tools with the defaults you want. If a tool doesn't have good defaults, pick one that does. Sure, you have to be pragmatic about this—if no tool has good defaults, just pick the one with the best (and the best support for configuration...)
  - ulbu 2y ago
    so instead of configuring a single tool, produce multiple tools of different configurations? you need to put those system parameters somewhere.

hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago

Zero config tools are quite excellent. I include quite a few of them in https://github.com/hiAndrewQuinn/shell-bling-ubuntu https://github.com/hiAndrewQuinn/shell-bling-ubuntu , although I also include high-config stuff in there at well so people can compare and contrast - you've got `hx` right next to a fully decked-out `nvim`, for example.

d_sc 2y ago

Article links to Julia Evans’ blog post on fish as well, which is a good read. https://jvns.ca/blog/2024/09/12/reasons-i--still--love-fish/ https://jvns.ca/blog/2024/09/12/reasons-i--still--love-fish/

bpx51 2y ago

Another tool that I can't live without, which requires no configuration at all is fzf, you can easily and (fuzz)yly find files in your system, move into directories, search in your command history, search active processes and kill them and a lot more. Give it a try

Zababa 2y ago
fzf (https://github.com/junegunn/fzf https://github.com/junegunn/fzf) is really great. Very useful for providing a quick and easy user interface. For example, I use it to fuzzy find inside git branches to have an "improved checkout". I do that since at work branches are usually named "<project>-<issue number>", it's faster to search for the issue number.
- xk3 2y ago
  I do this too! function zg --argument branch if test "$branch" = - git switch - else git checkout (git branch --list | fzf --query $branch --select-1 --exit-0 | string trim) end end

kkfx 2y ago

Well, zero-config generally means the tool is "modern", meaning it's defaults are current with the current tech/prefs of the most. Does not mean anything else. The issue here is that people tend to customize so they do not like their customization breaks because someone else have made new defaults. Aside the real "no config", no need to read a manual etc was tempted, historically the most successful who tried it was Microsoft and we know how bad it is... My take is that yes, we need sane defaults, but also full customization possible, a thing essentially absent in modern software.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

I don't mind configuration when the configuration is discoverable through a few menu options. But when you have to crawl through man pages and the options are endless like Vim, it starts to get annoying. I liked that when I was in my teens because it was cool, but not now. Too boring. That's why I switched from Vim to VS Code with the Vim plugin. It's sane by default.

BartjeD 2y ago

So essentially we need more sane defaults? I've read about sane defaults before, it used to be a best practice haha.

nasretdinov 2y ago
It's not just defaults though. E.g. fish comes with actual integrations with e.g. git, whoch requires both some code and some configuration. So IMO it goes much further than that: the best tools are the ones that do actually solve most common issues straight of the box, even if it takes more effort from developers.

pitah1 2y ago

This was also my philosophy behind creating insta-infra (https://github.com/data-catering/insta-infra https://github.com/data-catering/insta-infra). Single command to run any service. No additional thinking required. Too many times I've become very frustrated when an installation doesn't work the first time or it has some dependencies that you haven't installed (or worse, you have a different version). Then you end up in some deep rabbit hole that you can't dig out from. Now for each tool I make, it must have a quick start with a single command.

assanineass 2y ago

Although I agree it’s tough making a strong point when comparing Vim to Helix, it’s like saying you prefer Ubuntu over Arch since it’s nicely preconfigured.

lionkor 2y ago

I've "riced" Linux machines, Windows machines, different editors, terminals, file browsers, shells, web browsers, even commandline tools, to fully customize my own work machine. I used to install cool tools, new non-standard programs and made edits to config files. Now I basically just install Arch (personal machines) or Debian (servers), and leave almost everything at default. I have a handful of necessary tweaks for i3, mostly keybinds (Meta+O for emoji keyboard, a different runner, etc.) which I can reasonably remember, look up, or copy-paste to new machines. I used to have an intricate kickstart.nvim-based neovim setup, but I don't use it anymore. I like tools which have configs, but I try not to touch them, so I don't have to care about which machine I'm on too much. I can ssh into any Linux or Unix-adjacent machine and just get work done. Visual Studio Code and Zed/Zeditor are wonderful with good defaults, which I don't need to change. I adjust the font of all my terminals and editors to Fira Code, but that's pretty much it. The defaults are usually sane, and, if they're not, I look for a different program. This is why I appreciate ArchLinux so much, too; They keep the default configs for most tools, and (almost) only make sane adjustments if any. I've given up on customizing the hell out of my machine(s). If customizing your own machine(s) is your hobby, go for it, but if you want to be productive, consider getting used to default keybinds, default naming, typing out `ls -l` instead of `ll`, and getting the job done. You can own and fully control your machine without exercising this control just because you can, everywhere.

braggerxyz 2y ago
So true. I've done it in the past just to get bitten in the a* by my intricate configs or more the lack of them months or sometimes even years later. Working with the standards is the way to go, life is to short to work with VI and intricate configs.
w0m 2y ago
I feel called out.

rcxdude 2y ago

Sensible defaults are very much appreciated (and I've also adopted the philosophy of trying to avoid depending on elaborate customised configurations), but zero-config is not a good goal in and of itself. Very frequently I've found a configuration option is the difference between a tool that does and doesn't work at all for me.

zokier 2y ago
but on the flip side not all tools need to work for all people

rty32 2y ago

When I develop tools/real products for others, I try to come up with the best defaults and provide the best experience out of the box, because most people don't ever touch settings. On the other hand, I think it is important to have almost as many settings as technical possible/feasible and try to make them discoverable, and encourage people to customize -- although maybe not spend too much time on that. One setting that completely changed how I use vim: relative line number (and the "smart" version). I learned about it recently and realized I had wasted a stupid amount of time in the past decade since I used vim. Should that be the default? Probably not. But people do need to customize the editor to make it the most efficient and productive for themselves. I just wish relative line numbers are marketed more, and there is a way to gradually discover settings that people may want to tweak.

Mashimo 2y ago

I would love it more open source tools and projects would subscribe to the "Easy to learn, hard to master" / sane defaults / zero config approach. I used to love the photo editor DarkTable. I would spit out very close to camera Jpeg by default, but I could deep dive into some pictures if I wanted to. I don't know what changed, but with every update it just got harder to get something I liked from the pictures. I stopped using it. I already use fish (with temux) and will take a look at zellij.

klez 2y ago
I have some problem with DarkTable too. What are you using now instead?
- Mashimo 2y ago
  I started to use CaptureOne from the high seas. Yarrr. The only program I acquired that way. I just got to frustrated with DarkTable. It's really good at just spitting out images that look decent without changing a dial.

nitinreddy88 2y ago

I try to use most of the tools (linux) as standard as possible without customisation including shortcut keys. The problem is, once you are in remote sever/dev ops boxes, you can't have fancy tools or fancy shortcuts. It's better to train your mind to standard tools as much as possible.

Parae 2y ago
Just because we don't have access to great tools when working in remote server doesn't mean we shouldn't use them locally. I use Vim with lots of plugins on my personal projects, I use IntelliJ at work. But if I need to ssh and vi, it's ok, I know how to it efficiently. With Fleet or VSCode you can easily use your dev environment with your tools, plugins, shortcode to work on remote codebase via SSH.
- benterix 2y ago
  I agree, and fzf is a good example - on my local box it speeds up my reverse search, whereas when I'm on a remote server I use the same Ctrl+R I used for decades, and the final result is similar so no additional cognitive load.
exe34 2y ago
or bring your tools with you. or use them remotely - for example tramp mode in emacs. there's no need to walk barefoot your entire life just in case some day your shoes break and you have to hobble to the store.
- Asraelite 2y ago
  Agreed. With how easy it is to copy over a standalone binary for things like rg and fd, I find it hard to justify taking the time to learn the much more clunky standard tools. I don't need to access servers often though. I'm sure for others the situation is different.
viraptor 2y ago
That only really applies at a small scale. At some point you either stop logging into them, or do it just to run some automation. I can't remember the last time I did something non trivial in a remote terminal now. (Apart from my home server which has everything I want)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

eviks 2y ago

Charitably, yes: great defaults are indeed great, and we do need more tools to drop the unergonomic awfulness of the defaults made up decades ago. But literally, no: it's practically impossible for a very wide variety of tools to have great defaults. Case in point - that you have zero config in fish and helix is just you, there are also people who have plenty of OMF plugins or use a totally different keybinding scheme, so hundreds of lines of config

aerzen 2y ago

Another relatively new tool that contrasts complex music players: https://github.com/talwat/lowfi https://github.com/talwat/lowfi

mofosyne 2y ago

Or maybe we could have 'layered' configs with shared community layers? Thus in that sense it becomes a series of defaults good for people in specific context like different countries or professions.

aorth 2y ago

I'm a zsh user with a slightly complicated configuration. Fish or something else more modern with sane defaults could lure me away some day. I want to like helix. I've been using vim for twenty years. I suppose I have to put in some work to make the switch... no time and limited mental capacity (plus muscle memory). I have looked at Zellij and decided I like my simple tmux workflow better (it's configured to behave like GNU screen because I have twenty years of muscle memory for that too). Regarding Lazygit, I actually enjoy using standard git. I am pretty good at branches, rebasing, and other things.

w0m 2y ago
agree with you on all fronts there aside from lazygit; I see it as a different tool that makes it a bit easier to inspect change trees with less typing. I can do it on straight git-cli; but 100 characters typed vs 5 makes my fingers ache thinking. Same reason I have fugutive/diffview installed in nvim.

habitue 2y ago

I believe these config heavy tools happen because they are very old, and changing the default behavior breaks things and makes people mad. So they just add a new config option to enable some convenience feature, and then another and another... Soon new people come and want to use the tool and they're told they have to add a config file turning on a half century of features that seem obvious (cough font-lock-mode) In web development and app development, user interfaces change constantly, so why don't they fall prey to this as much? I think one thing is many of the tools we're talking about like shells and command line tools are actually APIs as well. Scripts break if you change the interface. If a web interface changes, maybe a scraping script fails, but otherwise nbd. This is probably the biggest failing of the model of your shell being both a user interface and a programming language you write long-lived and critical scripts in. As a user of the shell you want syntax highlighting and nice features like paging etc, but as a script writer you want the behavior to never change. In hindsight, maybe the way to do it is similar to apt-get vs apt get, where the former is for scripts and the latter is intended to be a ui that makes no backwards compatibility guarantees.

senkora 2y ago
> where the former is for scripts and the latter is intended to be a ui that makes no backwards compatibility guarantees. Also known as plumbing vs porcelain commands.
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> In web development and app development, user interfaces change constantly, so why don't they fall prey to this as much? Because they're happy to just break things and let the user deal with it. Which is (one of the reasons) why I prefer the CLI tools:) Though I also agree that there's an element of mixing UI/API.

II2II 2y ago

In some cases, the question is: what are sane defaults? Take emacs or vim. I know a lot of people use them as code editors, and think of them as code editors, but they are really general purpose text editors. It is going to be next to impossible to create a set of defaults that everyone, or even a majority of people, will agree are sane. (That said, they could be easier to configure.)

zakm 2y ago
I think this is a great point that most people forget. If you build something specifically for editing code you can do something cooler than vim/emacs and I've been working on that specific idea: https://youtu.be/owuuFxDBQh4?si=tqYi-RqvFQa6kI8h https://youtu.be/owuuFxDBQh4?si=tqYi-RqvFQa6kI8h