Use cases are different. I bet I'm not the only one who runs ls manually on my command line a LOT more than I ever use it in scripts.

I don't know how common my situation is, but I don't have any of those constraints. I have eza aliased to ls both on my daily driver and all of my work servers and it hasn't caused me a single problem.

The only time you have to care about GNU tools vs your own preference of tool is when writing scripts to run on computers running some Linux distributions, and per [1] you shouldn’t be using ls for that.

[1]: https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC2045

Yes but if you work professionally as a software engineer, chances are that you don't only use your PC. Being that a server that you connect remotely to develop on, or a production system where you connect to investigate a bug, or the PC of a coworker you are helping, or getting inside a container, etc.

Getting to know and use a standard setup makes you efficient in that situations, that is also the reason why I learned to use vim (since vim or at least vi you can take for granted there is on every system).

The only concession that I make is the shell, since zsh is much more convenient to use than bash, even if every time I use a system with bash I of course write some code that works in zsh and have to remember that in bash you can't do it. That is annoying, but to me it's worth it to use a better shell, not worth probably for an `ls` clone.

I just type `ls, which uses eza when I’m on my own device and ls when I’m on an SSH server. What’s the problem with that?

My setup does not deviate from that. As the sibling comment points out, `ls` responds everywhere (even powershell on Windows), it's just nicer on my local machine.

Coworker machines are whole different issue though - most of them have American keyboards (I do not), most of them do not use editors with vim bindings etc.