4 ms·

It's simplicity and ubiquity are the only reason we keep seeing absurd programs like Gitless put forth. Imagine if someone came out with someone that "fixed the

by zajd 10y ago

It's simplicity and ubiquity are the only reason we keep seeing absurd programs like Gitless put forth. Imagine if someone came out with someone that "fixed the warts of QT" that was just a wrapper around QT. It's a joke. It's coffeescript vs javascript all over again and we saw how that played out. Don't like how git works? contribute. Don't make some stupid command line utility that just adds another entire layer of abstraction on top because people don't want to take an hour to read about git internals.

sametmax 10y ago
Now, this is a UI problem, you don't need to change git, you just need something higher level. Git is fine the way it is, but it targets power users. Most people don't need that power. In that sense, gitless has a proper approach even if I don't like the result.
- zajd 10y ago
  I tend to agree with you that most people don't need that power but I think the problem is just that it IS a CLI interface, not that it's a particularly bad one. A GUI is the perfect tool to deal with discoverability and providing an easier interface for non-technical users. A CLI wrapper is just making things more confusing. I don't really understand what problem gitless seems to be solving...
  - weberc2 10y ago
    I disagree; `hg` is a CLI as well, but it's far simpler and safer than `git`. That said, I have far more experience with git than hg. Further, gitless itself is a cli, and it's also simpler than git.
    - zajd 10y ago
      If simplicity was the goal of command line interfaces they wouldn't exist. This is not ls or cat, nor is it trying to be. hg might have a better CLI than git, but it still doesn't justify something like gitless. You need a really compelling reason to layer another level of abstraction on top of git and from what I can tell, having branches be full sets of working files isn't really a good enough reason to make that switch. Where are the improvements in Gitless exactly? Pretty telling they don't even list them in anywhere.
    - ori_b 10y ago
      I have experience with both daily, and I mostly just don't notice any meaningful difference. Especially with the bookmark extension.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

by zajd 10y ago

sametmax 10y ago

Now, this is a UI problem, you don't need to change git, you just need something higher level. Git is fine the way it is, but it targets power users. Most people don't need that power. In that sense, gitless has a proper approach even if I don't like the result.

zajd 10y ago
I tend to agree with you that most people don't need that power but I think the problem is just that it IS a CLI interface, not that it's a particularly bad one. A GUI is the perfect tool to deal with discoverability and providing an easier interface for non-technical users. A CLI wrapper is just making things more confusing. I don't really understand what problem gitless seems to be solving...
- weberc2 10y ago
  I disagree; `hg` is a CLI as well, but it's far simpler and safer than `git`. That said, I have far more experience with git than hg. Further, gitless itself is a cli, and it's also simpler than git.
  - zajd 10y ago
    If simplicity was the goal of command line interfaces they wouldn't exist. This is not ls or cat, nor is it trying to be. hg might have a better CLI than git, but it still doesn't justify something like gitless. You need a really compelling reason to layer another level of abstraction on top of git and from what I can tell, having branches be full sets of working files isn't really a good enough reason to make that switch. Where are the improvements in Gitless exactly? Pretty telling they don't even list them in anywhere.
  - ori_b 10y ago
    I have experience with both daily, and I mostly just don't notice any meaningful difference. Especially with the bookmark extension.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]