nnn

Pros of vifm

• Dual-pane file manager with Vi-like keybindings
• Highly customizable with extensive configuration options
• Supports color schemes and themes

Cons of vifm

• Steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with Vi-like interfaces
• Slower startup time compared to nnn
• Less focus on minimalism and lightweight design

Code Comparison

vifm configuration example:

" Sample vifmrc
set vicmd=vim
colorscheme Default
set trash
set history=100
set nofollowlinks
set sortnumbers
set undolevels=100
filetype * xdg-open

nnn configuration example:

# Sample nnn config
export NNN_OPTS="cEFrx"
export NNN_COLORS="2136"
export NNN_TRASH=1
export NNN_PLUG='f:finder;o:fzopen;p:mocplay;d:diffs;t:nmount;v:imgview'

Both projects are terminal-based file managers, but they have different approaches. vifm focuses on providing a Vi-like experience with extensive customization options, while nnn emphasizes simplicity, speed, and minimal resource usage. vifm offers a dual-pane interface, making it easier to manage files across directories, whereas nnn provides a single-pane view with a more streamlined navigation experience. The configuration examples show that vifm uses a Vi-like syntax for its configuration, while nnn relies on environment variables for customization.

Pros of ranger

• More feature-rich with extensive customization options
• Built-in file previews and image support
• Vim-like keybindings and commands for efficient navigation

Cons of ranger

• Slower startup time and higher resource usage
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration
• Python-based, which may not be ideal for all environments

Code comparison

ranger:

def draw(self):
    self.win.erase()
    line = 0
    for direntry in self.content[self.scroll_begin:self.scroll_end]:
        self.win.addnstr(line, 0, direntry.basename, self.wid)
        line += 1
    self.win.refresh()

nnn:

static void redraw(void)
{
    clearoldentry(oldselectscr, oldselection);
    refresh();
    displayselection();
}

Summary

ranger offers a more feature-rich experience with extensive customization options, built-in file previews, and Vim-like keybindings. However, it has a slower startup time, higher resource usage, and a steeper learning curve compared to nnn.

nnn, on the other hand, is lightweight, fast, and easy to use, but lacks some of the advanced features and customization options found in ranger. It's written in C, making it more portable and efficient in resource-constrained environments.

The choice between ranger and nnn depends on the user's needs, system resources, and preference for features versus simplicity and speed.

Pros of lf

• Written in Go, which can offer better performance and easier cross-platform compilation
• More customizable with extensive configuration options
• Supports remote file systems like SFTP out of the box

Cons of lf

• Smaller community and fewer contributors compared to nnn
• Less feature-rich in terms of built-in functionality
• May have a steeper learning curve for new users due to its configuration-heavy approach

Code Comparison

lf (Go):

func (f *Fm) readdir(path string) {
    f.files = nil
    f.dirs = nil
    f.names = nil
    entries, err := ioutil.ReadDir(path)
    if err != nil {
        f.errors = append(f.errors, err)
    }
}

nnn (C):

static int
populate(char *path, char *fltr, char *subdir)
{
    DIR *dirp;
    struct dirent *dp;
    char *namep, *pnb;
    size_t off = 0;
    int r = 0;
}

Both projects aim to provide efficient file management in the terminal, but they take different approaches. lf focuses on customization and configuration, while nnn emphasizes simplicity and a wide range of built-in features. The choice between them often comes down to personal preference and specific use cases.

Pros of fff

• Extremely lightweight and fast, with minimal dependencies
• Simple and easy to use, with a focus on basic file management tasks
• Written entirely in Bash, making it highly portable across Unix-like systems

Cons of fff

• Limited feature set compared to nnn's more comprehensive functionality
• Less active development and smaller community support
• Lacks some advanced features like plugins or extensive customization options

Code Comparison

fff:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# A simple file manager written in bash.

[[ $1 == --help ]] && {
    printf '%s\n' "usage: ${0##*/} [DIR]"
    exit
}

nnn:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <ncurses.h>

Summary

fff is a minimalist file manager focused on simplicity and speed, while nnn offers a more feature-rich experience with advanced functionality. fff is written in Bash, making it highly portable, whereas nnn is written in C for better performance. nnn has a larger community and more active development, but fff may be preferred by users seeking a lightweight and straightforward file management solution.

Pros of dircolors-solarized

• Focuses specifically on color schemes for directory listings
• Provides multiple color themes based on the popular Solarized palette
• Easy to integrate with existing shell configurations

Cons of dircolors-solarized

• Limited functionality compared to nnn's full-featured file manager
• Requires manual configuration and integration with the shell
• Less actively maintained with fewer recent updates

Code Comparison

dircolors-solarized:

DIR 34 # directory
LINK 35 # symbolic link
FIFO 30;44 # pipe
SOCK 35;44 # socket

nnn:

static const char *colors[] = {
    "#00ff00", /* DIR */
    "#00ffff", /* EXEC */
    "#ff0000", /* REG */
    "#ffa500", /* SYMLINK */
};

While dircolors-solarized focuses on defining colors for different file types in shell environments, nnn implements a broader range of functionality, including its own color scheme definition within the file manager's codebase.

Pros of trash-cli

• Focused specifically on safe file deletion and trash management
• Provides a simple CLI interface for moving files to trash
• Supports multiple trash directories and follows FreeDesktop.org trash specification

Cons of trash-cli

• Limited functionality compared to nnn's full-featured file manager capabilities
• Lacks visual interface and navigation features
• May require additional tools for comprehensive file management tasks

Code Comparison

trash-cli example:

trash-put file.txt
trash-list
trash-restore

nnn example:

nnn
# Navigate using arrow keys
# Press 'd' to delete (move to trash)
# Press 'r' to restore from trash

Summary

trash-cli is a specialized tool for trash management, offering a straightforward CLI for safely deleting and restoring files. nnn, on the other hand, is a full-featured file manager with built-in trash functionality among many other features. While trash-cli excels in its focused approach, nnn provides a more comprehensive solution for file management tasks. The choice between the two depends on whether you need a dedicated trash management tool or a versatile file manager with integrated trash capabilities.