3 ms·

This is likely an insult to git but it’s really similar to vim in that regard. After using ST2 or TextMate for so long, many people aren’t interested in learnin

This is likely an insult to git but it’s really similar to vim in that regard. After using ST2 or TextMate for so long, many people aren’t interested in learning (remembering?) how to use vim’s modals/commands. A lot of people probably did start with SourceTree or a git plug-in in Visual Studio etc My git workflow is very much tied to aliases. Customization is a hot thing for many people (but really you should probably read the fugitive.vim docs in their entirety)

madhadron 8y ago
I go the other way. After twenty years of unix, the first few without X11, I have become very clear on what is cruft and history and what is actually making my life better. SourceTree didn't exist when I started using git, but it makes the day to day operations of source control much easier and more precise than the command line. I spent enough years in a command line debugger that I am thrilled to have good debugger integration in my IDE. It's easy to get into a machismo thing where you regard the shell and a teletype emulator as the "natural" interface to the computer, but it's really an incredibly abstracted interface already, and if you spend some time thinking about what you're actually doing, there's usually a GUI or library for an actual language that is what you really want. It just may not exist.
- xorcist 8y ago
  > It's easy to get into a machismo thing where you regard the shell Unspoken presumptions about how the CLI is harder to use and GUIs somehow more natural (because graphics) is usually a sign of not understanding neither. I spend most of my time in my editor and at the command line because it's easier to use. I don't have to learn thousands of little clickable widgets just to get the job done (which tend to change with every version of the tool). That said, there are good and bad user interfaces with CLI tools, just like with GUI tools. What's more interesting however, is how tools shape the way you think. CLI tools tend to feel like processing data, whereas with GUI tools you feel like maneouvering a large machine. The former tends to lead to fewer mistakes at scale.

madhadron 8y ago

I go the other way. After twenty years of unix, the first few without X11, I have become very clear on what is cruft and history and what is actually making my life better. SourceTree didn't exist when I started using git, but it makes the day to day operations of source control much easier and more precise than the command line. I spent enough years in a command line debugger that I am thrilled to have good debugger integration in my IDE. It's easy to get into a machismo thing where you regard the shell and a teletype emulator as the "natural" interface to the computer, but it's really an incredibly abstracted interface already, and if you spend some time thinking about what you're actually doing, there's usually a GUI or library for an actual language that is what you really want. It just may not exist.

xorcist 8y ago
> It's easy to get into a machismo thing where you regard the shell Unspoken presumptions about how the CLI is harder to use and GUIs somehow more natural (because graphics) is usually a sign of not understanding neither. I spend most of my time in my editor and at the command line because it's easier to use. I don't have to learn thousands of little clickable widgets just to get the job done (which tend to change with every version of the tool). That said, there are good and bad user interfaces with CLI tools, just like with GUI tools. What's more interesting however, is how tools shape the way you think. CLI tools tend to feel like processing data, whereas with GUI tools you feel like maneouvering a large machine. The former tends to lead to fewer mistakes at scale.