[saghm]

> Could a `find` replacement do the ignore patterns just as well? OTOH, does ripgrep offer better I/O and compute parallelism than a naive xargs/parallel?

I'm not sure if you're asking rhetorically or not, but I genuinely don't know the answers to those questions, and I'd argue that's kind of the point. Pretty much any time I've ever had to do anything non-trivial with either find or xargs, I've had to look up how to do it. The most common way I've used xargs over the years by far is piping to it as a quick and dirty way to condense whitespace to a string I get out at the end of some one-liner.

The larger point I was trying to make is that good experience out of the box" is in practice a legitimate reason that people will prefer one thing to another even if it's equivalent to some other thing you might be able to throw together manually that's just as good from a technical perspective. There's certainly power in knowing how to use composable tools, but there's also power in being able to save time to put towards other things if you care about them more, and people will have different preferences about where to strike that balance for a given tool. The more precise point I was trying to make is that "this doesn't fit the UNIX philosophy" seems like fairly weak criticism; if that's the strongest argument that can be made against ripgrep, it makes a lot of sense why it was so successful.