refact: categorize dev scripts & add zed editor installation

[jeevithakannan2]

Type of Change

• [x] New feature
• [x] Refactoring

Description

• Added zed editor installation script.

[!NOTE] Chores:

• The chores are not related to this PR. Instead of creating a separate PR it was done here itself.
• Refactor Developer-tools directory to developer-tools (Kind of annoying for developers to hold shift every time when typing D)
• Refactor file names inside developer-tools from application-setup.sh to application.sh as all the scripts inside the directory is supposed to setup that particular application. No need of mentioning it in the name.
• The chores are of separate commits @ChrisTitusTech If you wish not to do this we can easily revert the commits.

Testing

• Tested on arch linux and debian12 without issues.

Checklist

• [x] My code adheres to the coding and style guidelines of the project.
• [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
• [x] My changes generate no errors/warnings/merge conflicts.

[nnyyxxxx]

@jeevithakannan2 if there are any other scripts that use && with command_exists please remove all of the &&'s and make a pr

[jeevithakannan2]

That suggestion is wrong.

[nnyyxxxx]

how so?

[jeevithakannan2]

You suggestion is interpreted as command_exists foo1 || command_exists foo2

[nnyyxxxx]

nope

[nnyyxxxx]

command_exists() {
for cmd in "$@"; do
    export PATH="$HOME/.local/share/flatpak/exports/bin:/var/lib/flatpak/exports/bin:$PATH"
    command -v "$cmd" >/dev/null 2>&1 || return 1
done
return 0
}

take a look

[jeevithakannan2]

This will not check both foo1 and foo2 .It will immediately return 1 if foo1 is not found

[nnyyxxxx]

removing the && would simplify it since && is redundant due to #762 having both && and not having && is the same but, && is redundant due to #762

[nnyyxxxx]

if one is found why would it need to check the others? - > i misunderstood

This will not check both foo1 and foo2 .It will immediately return 1 if foo1 is not found

[jeevithakannan2]

removing the && would simplify it since && is redundant due to #762 having both && and not having && is the same but, && is redundant due to #762

That's what I have explained above. #762 will work as || not as &&

[nnyyxxxx]

i have made a pr to fix this #931 , might as well change it now and reference it in the description of this one

im tripping lol

[nnyyxxxx]

ig there really is no way to fix that other than manually using &&

[jeevithakannan2]

Oops accidentally rebased instead of merging main. Will clear this in a minute

[nnyyxxxx]

wtf

[jeevithakannan2]

Fixed !!

[cartercanedy]

Oops accidentally rebased instead of merging main. Will clear this in a minute

Rebasing is often preferred, just fyi

Too many merges make git log way to complicated to understand/bisect if needed.