4 ms·

Either I don't get most of the koans or they are intended to disparage git's UX instead of truly enlighten. Is the joke just going over my head or am I not thin

Either I don't get most of the koans or they are intended to disparage git's UX instead of truly enlighten. Is the joke just going over my head or am I not thinking hard enough?

rout39574 10y ago
Yeah, I read it as jeering, too.
treve 10y ago
It is meant as a bit of a joke.
delecti 10y ago
A Koan is "a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment" I think that kinda implicitly means the author considers git to be either paradoxical or illogical. That seems even more clear from the last two paragraphs of "The Hobgoblin".
- th0114nd 10y ago
  I didn't read the hobgoblin the same way as the author being purely critical. I read it as a defense: a similarity between commands would make it easier to choose the wrong one. Removing a branch is a more destructive than deleting a file, so it should be a command chosen with conscious care rather than muscle memory.
  - sidhantgandhi 10y ago
    That's the absolute opposite conclusion from what the author intended.
    - adamrezich 10y ago
      Are you the author? Or, if not, did the author specify their intended conclusions in additional material somewhere?
- jejones3141 10y ago
  That's a reference to an Emerson quote; if I remember rightly it's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I suspect the implication is that only little minds expect consistency... but over and above Emerson being a questionable source for UI design principles, he qualifies it. The quote isn't "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
lukeasrodgers 10y ago
I can't speak for the author's intention, but yes, these "koans" highlight some of git's worst UX warts; or, arguably, not just UX warts but conflicts internal to the conceptual underpinnings of git (http://people.csail.mit.edu/sperezde/onward13.pdf http://people.csail.mit.edu/sperezde/onward13.pdf).
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > but yes, these "koans" highlight some of git's worst UX warts; or, arguably, not just UX warts but conflicts internal to the conceptual underpinnings of git If that's the case, the "One Thing Well" kohan misses the mark rather glaringly.
rtpg 10y ago
I feel like they're meant to be jokey about UX failings, but I'm unsure what the author is trying to convey. For example: > [something about history being present and immutable] >“Splendid!” exclaimed the historian. “I have a historical record of a merge commit with two parents. How can I find out which branch each parent was originally made on?” >“History is ephemeral,” replied Master Git, “the knowledge you seek can be answered only by the gods.” the pedantic explanation here is that branches are a separate subsystem, with each branch just being a pointer to a commit. And the history works off of the commit. The answer from "Master Git" doesn't feel like an answer from a master. Maybe I'm reading too much into this but Git becomes way less confusing if you think more about what things are, rather than how they're used .
- manicdee 10y ago
  That is exactly the joke.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hyperpallium 10y ago
git beats positr0n with its UX at that moment, positr0n was enlightened

Either I don't get most of the koans or they are intended to disparage git's UX instead of truly enlighten. Is the joke just going over my head or am I not thinking hard enough?

rout39574 10y ago

Yeah, I read it as jeering, too.

treve 10y ago

It is meant as a bit of a joke.

delecti 10y ago

A Koan is "a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment" I think that kinda implicitly means the author considers git to be either paradoxical or illogical. That seems even more clear from the last two paragraphs of "The Hobgoblin".

th0114nd 10y ago
I didn't read the hobgoblin the same way as the author being purely critical. I read it as a defense: a similarity between commands would make it easier to choose the wrong one. Removing a branch is a more destructive than deleting a file, so it should be a command chosen with conscious care rather than muscle memory.
- sidhantgandhi 10y ago
  That's the absolute opposite conclusion from what the author intended.
  - adamrezich 10y ago
    Are you the author? Or, if not, did the author specify their intended conclusions in additional material somewhere?
jejones3141 10y ago
That's a reference to an Emerson quote; if I remember rightly it's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I suspect the implication is that only little minds expect consistency... but over and above Emerson being a questionable source for UI design principles, he qualifies it. The quote isn't "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

lukeasrodgers 10y ago

I can't speak for the author's intention, but yes, these "koans" highlight some of git's worst UX warts; or, arguably, not just UX warts but conflicts internal to the conceptual underpinnings of git (http://people.csail.mit.edu/sperezde/onward13.pdf http://people.csail.mit.edu/sperezde/onward13.pdf).

geezerjay 10y ago
> but yes, these "koans" highlight some of git's worst UX warts; or, arguably, not just UX warts but conflicts internal to the conceptual underpinnings of git If that's the case, the "One Thing Well" kohan misses the mark rather glaringly.

rtpg 10y ago

I feel like they're meant to be jokey about UX failings, but I'm unsure what the author is trying to convey. For example: > [something about history being present and immutable] >“Splendid!” exclaimed the historian. “I have a historical record of a merge commit with two parents. How can I find out which branch each parent was originally made on?” >“History is ephemeral,” replied Master Git, “the knowledge you seek can be answered only by the gods.” the pedantic explanation here is that branches are a separate subsystem, with each branch just being a pointer to a commit. And the history works off of the commit. The answer from "Master Git" doesn't feel like an answer from a master. Maybe I'm reading too much into this but Git becomes way less confusing if you think more about what things are, rather than how they're used .

manicdee 10y ago
That is exactly the joke.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

hyperpallium 10y ago

git beats positr0n with its UX at that moment, positr0n was enlightened