find -type f -exec sed -i s/foo/bar/ {} +

Admittedly I wrote that nearly 20 years ago so I guess it doesn't invalidate your point :-)

- There's the issue of command line length, pipe too many files and xargs will just fail.

- There's predictibility. With -exec you get to see the entire command line structure, what is escaped, what is not, what names go where. With xargs, a couple of badly named files and you are out of luck.

- Find's syntax is just more general. Xarg is limited to pushing parameters into a script, while -exec can run whatever scrit you want, with single or multiple parameters, or flags, or whatever.

Performance is almost never an issue.

especially this quote:

> find's business is evaluating expressions -- not locating files. Yes, find certainly locates files; but that's really just a side effect.

I already know how to use it. It works.

> It's often painfully slower than piping through xargs

I've tried it. It has different semantics. First attempt always leads to errors and doing the wrong things. I always have to come up with some workaround to make things work as I expect they would (i.e. how -exec does things by default).

This lack of confidence also means I would never dare using xargs for anything remotely destructive (like rm).

What reason do I have not to use -exec? Why swap a perfectly perfect hammer for a broken screwdriver?

Besides: IMO the timesaving aspects of find is not strictly tied to how fast find runs. It's tied to what I can automate.

Edit: Swore I had gotten ARG_MAX complaints out of xargs in the past. Replies are correct though. I'm wrong here...xargs adjusts on the fly. Perhaps long ago, or some obscure use of xargs?