How is this better than the lsd tool?

[StewAlexander-com]

I've used the tool lsd for awhile, what advantages does this have for it?

[PThorpe92]

I think it's really a matter of personal preference. Exa is a few years older than LSD and already had a large user base by the time lsd came around, so I imagine that many use it out of familiarity. Both are awesome tools, I have used both each for quite some time.

This might not be the most helpful answer but I am not sure if there are any significant features we have that lsd does not at this point. If you are curious, maybe try it out for a while and see what you think. 👍

[cafkafk]

As PThorpe said, I think it varies between people. For me personally, one of the biggest reasons can be summed as this:

hyperfine "eza -l --icons" "lsd"
Benchmark 1: eza -l --icons
  Time (mean ± σ):       4.3 ms ±   0.3 ms    [User: 2.6 ms, System: 4.7 ms]
  Range (min … max):     3.9 ms …   5.7 ms    364 runs
 
 
Benchmark 2: lsd
  Time (mean ± σ):     101.4 ms ±   2.5 ms    [User: 4.1 ms, System: 8.6 ms]
  Range (min … max):    97.2 ms … 108.2 ms    29 runs
 
Summary
  eza -l --icons ran
   23.67 ± 1.83 times faster than lsd

However, this is probably better suited to a discussion rather than the issue tracker.

[PurpleMang]

I'm wondering, is this benchmark in some gigantic folder? lsd gets about 14ms in my pictures folder. Maybe it got improved since this post idk

[piechologist]

My pet peeve: eza can sort file names case-sensitively, lsd can't.

[Dini-25]

I like to use the tree view to directories only. I can do this in eza but with lsd i cant as it does not allow to specify the depth of the tree when using the directory only option.

[Picure01]

lsd --tree took 6.28s
eza --tree took 0.29s

it's your choice!