michael_fine

In a story of insane luck (and unluck!), the craziest part is definitely this

" He said that if I had had a spleen, it almost certainly would have ruptured when I hit the water, and I would have bled to death. Of the 25 pilots in our squadron, I am the only one without a spleen. It gives me something to think about. Maybe it does you as well."

While they exist, shell based autocomplete have always felt like a suboptimal solution we just accept out of historical happenstance.

- You need to press tab to get any completion to display

- You don't know what completion will appear when you press tab, or at most one completion displays

- The completions are not at all aware of context, at best just doing some untyped fuzzy matching. Compare this to Fig, which at least seems to know what sorts of arguments each command accepts and displays a list of them

- They only provide completion, not inline documentation, which is one of the big points of the article

Woah, that's really cool. This seems to check the first two of the article's points, approachability and discoverability. Are there any plans to implement the third point, interactivity, where you have small, dynamic guis embedded in the terminal?