>The idea that "uses a graph" implies "equally hard to use". What I'm getting at is that if you don't understand what the graph entails, and what you need to d

>The idea that "uses a graph" implies "equally hard to use". What I'm getting at is that if you don't understand what the graph entails, and what you need to do the graph, any system is going to be "hard to use." This idea that things should immediately make sense without understanding what you need to do or even what you're asking the system to do, is just silly. I've never seen someone who understands git, darcs, mercurial, pijul, etc go "I totally understand how this data is being stored but it's just so hard to use!" I don't think that can be the case, because any of the graphs those applications choose to use have some shared cross section of operations: * add * remove * merge * reorder * push * pull I see people confused about the above, because they don't understand what they're really asking the system to do. I don't think any abstraction is ever going to solve that. Git does have a problem with its command line (or at least how consistent and ambiguous it can sometimes be), but you really should get past it after a week or two of using it. The rest is on you. If you know what you want/need to do getting past the CLI isn't hard. People struggle with the former and so they think the latter is what's stopping them.