fzf vs television
Compare fzf, television: workflows, strengths and tradeoffs.
Updated
short verdict
Choose fzf if you want an interactive picker for lists produced by shell commands. Choose television if you want configured search channels for several data sources.
Compare the workflow you need with the input, interface and configuration each tool expects. Choose fzf if you want an interactive picker for lists produced by shell commands. Choose television if you want configured search channels for several data sources.
Choose fzf if you want an interactive picker for lists produced by shell commands.
best for
- You want an interactive picker for lists produced by shell commands
strengths
- Filters arbitrary line-oriented input
- Provides shell integration for common selection workflows
weaknesses
- You still need a command that produces the candidate list.
Choose television if you want configured search channels for several data sources.
best for
- You want configured search channels for several data sources
strengths
- Searches files, text and repository data
- Supports custom data sources
weaknesses
- A custom search channel requires its own source configuration.
Key differences
- fzf: you want an interactive picker for lists produced by shell commands.
- television: you want configured search channels for several data sources.
Choose fzf when
You still need a command that produces the candidate list.
- Filters arbitrary line-oriented input
- Provides shell integration for common selection workflows
Choose television when
A custom search channel requires its own source configuration.
- Searches files, text and repository data
- Supports custom data sources
FAQ
- When should I choose fzf?
- Choose fzf if you want an interactive picker for lists produced by shell commands. You still need a command that produces the candidate list.
- When should I choose television?
- Choose television if you want configured search channels for several data sources. A custom search channel requires its own source configuration.