Put it this way: Think of it like a Socratic dialog. Just because a replacement for ls(1) may not be beneficial due to configuration and customization already being commonplace, isn't the same as saying the mere notion of a competing unix CLI tool is bad.

top(1) doesn't allow color configuration. I use htop(1), and like it.

ls(1) already has color customization via LS_COLORS and long-list format via -l in ls. And about 10+ other output options. It's quite flexible.

git status can be shown via `git status`, and via the PS1 in oh-my-zsh/pure.

> Nobody is going to use this to replace "ls" in scripts.

I'm concerned they will, and not recognize it. To beginner and novice shell users, it's easier to cargo cult stuff in and not know what's happening. And things will break in ways that's a nightmare for them to troubleshoot.

My gut instinct is being verified by comments in this thread mentioning alias'ing in exa as ls.

I forgot to add: Having colors / fancy output when you just want to pipe information around the shell is of no value.

IMO it goes against the spirit of what commands like ls are meant to do, and the behavior exa provides is better placed, and already done well, via shell configuration (e.g. oh-my-zsh, presto, pure)