[bieganski]

i wish there was an additional column in the table, that says "what problem does it solve". oh, and 'it's written in rust' does not count.

[drob518]

“It’s written in Rust”

Actual LOL. Indeed. I was working for a large corporation at one point and a development team was explaining their product. I asked what its differentiators were versus our competitors. The team replied that ours was written in Go. #faceplam

[demetris]

The Rust rewrites can become tiresome, they have become a meme at this point, but there are really good tools there too.

An example from my personal experience: I used to think that oxipng was just a faster optipng. I took a closer look recently and saw that it is more than that.

See: https://op111.net/posts/2025/09/png-compression-oxipng-optip...

[IshKebab]

That is a differentiator if your competitors are written in Python or Ruby or Bash or whatever. But yeah obviously for marketing to normal people you'd have to say "it's fast and reliable and easy to distribute" because they wouldn't know that these are properties of Go.

[oneeyedpigeon]

Many of the entries do include this detail — e.g. "with syntax highlighting", "ncurses interface", and "more intuitive". I agree that "written in rust", "modern", and "better" aren't very useful!

[account42]

Some of this just makes me think that they are compared against the wrong tool though. E.g.

> cat clone with syntax highlighting and git integration

doesn't make any sense because cat is not really meant for viewing files. You should be comparing your tool with the more/less/most family of tools, some of which can already do syntax highlighting or even more complex transforms.

[pasc1878]

Also using a non GPL license does not count.

[dragonelite]

A lot of those tools are also usable on windows thats why i like them.

[TheCoelacanth]

It seems for most of them, the primary goal is improved UX.