Pros of cheat

• Supports personal cheatsheets and customization
• Offers offline access to cheatsheets
• Allows for more detailed explanations and examples

Cons of cheat

• Smaller community and fewer contributors
• Less standardized format for cheatsheets
• Requires manual installation and setup

Code comparison

tldr:

$ tldr tar
# tar
# Archiving utility.
# Often combined with a compression method, such as gzip or bzip2.
# More information: https://www.gnu.org/software/tar/

- Create an archive from files:
  tar cf target.tar file1 file2 file3

cheat:

$ cheat tar
# To create an uncompressed archive:
tar -cvf /path/to/foo.tar /path/to/foo/

# To extract an uncompressed archive:
tar -xvf /path/to/foo.tar

Both tldr and cheat provide concise command-line examples for various tools and utilities. tldr focuses on providing a standardized, community-driven set of examples with a consistent format across all entries. cheat offers more flexibility in terms of content and allows users to create and maintain their own cheatsheets.

tldr is better suited for quick reference and standardized examples, while cheat excels in customization and more detailed explanations. The choice between the two depends on individual preferences and use cases.

Pros of cheat.sh

• Offers a wider range of programming languages and tools
• Provides interactive shell access for exploring commands
• Supports multiple output formats (text, markdown, syntax-highlighted code)

Cons of cheat.sh

• Less community-driven, with fewer contributors
• May contain more complex or advanced examples, which can be overwhelming for beginners

Code comparison

tldr:

$ tldr tar
tar

Archiving utility.
Often combined with a compression method, such as gzip or bzip2.

- [c]reate an archive and write it to a [f]ile:
  tar cf target.tar file1 file2 file3

cheat.sh:

$ curl cheat.sh/tar
tar
# To extract an uncompressed archive:
tar -xvf /path/to/foo.tar

# To create an uncompressed archive:
tar -cvf /path/to/foo.tar /path/to/foo/

Both projects aim to provide concise command-line examples, but cheat.sh offers more flexibility in terms of output formats and supported languages. tldr focuses on simplicity and community-driven content, making it more beginner-friendly. cheat.sh provides a broader range of examples and interactive features, which may be more appealing to advanced users. The choice between the two depends on the user's needs and preferences.

Pros of howdoi

• Provides direct answers to programming questions from the command line
• Utilizes web scraping to fetch up-to-date information from Stack Overflow
• Offers more detailed explanations and code snippets for specific problems

Cons of howdoi

• May return irrelevant or outdated information if the question is not specific enough
• Requires an internet connection to function
• Can be slower to retrieve information compared to local documentation

Code comparison

howdoi:

def get_answer(query):
    url = get_stackoverflow_url(query)
    soup = BeautifulSoup(requests.get(url).text, 'html.parser')
    answer = soup.find('div', class_='accepted-answer').find('code')
    return answer.text

tldr:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
page=$(find . -name "$1.md" | head -n 1)
if [ -n "$page" ]; then
    cat "$page"
else
    echo "Page not found"
fi

Summary

howdoi is a dynamic tool that fetches answers from the web, providing detailed solutions to specific programming questions. It's beneficial for developers seeking immediate help with coding problems. However, it relies on internet connectivity and may sometimes return less accurate results.

tldr offers concise, curated command-line examples for various tools and commands. It's faster and works offline, but provides less detailed explanations compared to howdoi. The choice between the two depends on whether you need quick reference guides or more in-depth problem-solving assistance.

Pros of awesome-cli-apps

• Comprehensive list of CLI applications across various categories
• Includes both popular and lesser-known tools, offering a wider range of options
• Provides brief descriptions for each app, helping users understand their purpose

Cons of awesome-cli-apps

• Lacks detailed usage instructions or examples for the listed applications
• May require additional research to determine how to use specific tools
• Not as frequently updated as tldr, potentially containing outdated information

Code comparison

While a direct code comparison isn't applicable in this case, we can compare the structure of entries in each repository:

tldr:

# command-name

> Brief description of the command.
> More information: <link to more info>.

- Example usage:

`command-name option1 option2`

- Another example:

`command-name different-option`

awesome-cli-apps:

- [app-name](link-to-app) - Brief description of the app.

The tldr repository focuses on providing concise usage instructions for individual commands, while awesome-cli-apps offers a curated list of CLI applications with brief descriptions.

Pros of tealdeer

• Written in Rust, offering better performance and memory safety
• Supports offline caching of pages for faster access
• Provides a customizable color scheme for improved readability

Cons of tealdeer

• Smaller community and fewer contributors compared to tldr
• Less extensive page coverage, as it relies on the tldr project for content
• Requires compilation, which may be less convenient for some users

Code comparison

tldr (Python):

def get_page(language, platform, command):
    for directory in directories:
        if os.path.isfile(os.path.join(directory, language, platform, command + '.md')):
            with open(os.path.join(directory, language, platform, command + '.md'), 'r') as f:
                return f.read()

tealdeer (Rust):

pub fn find_page(config: &Config, page_name: &str) -> Result<Page> {
    let cache = Cache::new(config)?;
    cache.find_page(page_name)
        .or_else(|_| download_page(config, page_name))
}

Both projects aim to provide simplified command-line documentation, but tealdeer focuses on performance and offline capabilities, while tldr offers broader community support and content coverage. tealdeer's Rust implementation may appeal to developers seeking a more efficient solution, while tldr's Python codebase might be more accessible for contributions.

Pros of navi

• Interactive and customizable: Users can create and edit their own cheatsheets
• Supports multiple programming languages and shell integrations
• Offers fuzzy search and autocompletion features

Cons of navi

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex functionality
• Requires installation and setup, unlike tldr's web-based option
• May be overkill for users seeking simple command references

Code comparison

navi:

navi --query "git commit"
navi --cheatsheet <path> --query <cmd>

tldr:

tldr git commit
tldr --platform=linux tar

Key differences

• navi focuses on interactive, customizable cheatsheets
• tldr provides simple, community-curated command examples
• navi offers more advanced features like fuzzy search and shell integration
• tldr is more straightforward and accessible for quick reference

Both projects aim to simplify command-line usage, but cater to different user needs. navi is better suited for power users who want a customizable, interactive experience, while tldr is ideal for those seeking quick, standardized command references across various platforms.