[mschrage]

I think there are two main areas where we improve the default experience.

1. Zero configuration needed to get started.

With Fig, the experience just works out of the box. A lot of developers - especially people less comfortable with the terminal - don't feel confident installing a bunch of 3rd party zsh completions or creating a custom setup.

2. Extensibility.

We've worked really hard to make the experience of writing your own completions very easy and powerful. Lots of teams are using Fig to make internal scripts and CLI tools more ergonomic and discoverable.

In my experience, writing custom shell completion scripts is not very much fun.

[ushakov]

> especially people less comfortable with the terminal - don't feel confident installing a bunch of 3rd party zsh completions or creating a custom setup

are you telling us that your proprietary blackbox that asks my e-mail and sends telemetry data is better than open-source well-documented, widely-used, established tools?

> Lots of teams are using Fig to make internal scripts and CLI tools more ergonomic and discoverable.

can these completions be used outside of Fig?

i guess not, because this doesn’t make you any money?

> In my experience, writing custom shell completion scripts is not very much fun

yep, because nobody usually writes them, they’re autogenerated by whatever CLI framework you’re using

with Fig you write them and yes, writing autocompletions for Fig manually is better than writing Compdef manually

but again, nobody usually writes them…

[number6]

If zsh is to complicated just use fish...