4 ms·

I don't think it's an indictment since it's a clear tradeoff. Yes git isn't intuitive or self explanatory for newcomers, but that's only because it's optimised

I don't think it's an indictment since it's a clear tradeoff. Yes git isn't intuitive or self explanatory for newcomers, but that's only because it's optimised to be maximally efficient for experienced users. To me, this is a sensible decision. The target users of git will use it day in and day out for decades, in this case it makes sense to prioritise experienced usage. For onboarding new users there are plenty of good tutorials, and I think in the long run it makes sense to put the legwork in with those, rather than switch to a more intuitive but less efficient porcelain.

aequitas 7y ago
I disagree. Git is complex solution to a complex problem (collaborative code management), so it's understandable there are complexities in mastering Git. However the UI of Git just doesn't make sense in some area's, especially to a newcomer. For a lot of people it's enough to understand the basic concepts with commands that make sense. But as it is right now the UI turns this in to hard to remember concepts and command arguments that belong more in a trivia quiz than a user guide. Also see: https://gitless.com/#research https://gitless.com/#research
jcranmer 7y ago
> Yes git isn't intuitive or self explanatory for newcomers, but that's only because it's optimised to be maximally efficient for experienced users. But that implies that a trade-off has to be there, which it does not. If you design your features well, it can both be quite intuitive for newcomers while still affording efficiency for experts. A great example is the staging area in git. It is a horrible feature, that causes lots of interactions with other commands that are inconsistent and unclear, especially for newcomers. How to do it better? Just make the staging area a full-fledged commit. Considering that it's already pretty easy to edit a commit anyways, promoting the workflow of just polishing a commit before publication is more intuitive for users, and it means questions like "how do I see what the diff of the staging area by itself is?" is really just "how do I see what the diff of a commit by itself is?" One of those questions I already know the answer to, the other I don't.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  It is encouraging with the work going into the `git checkout` split into `git switch` and `git restore` that there is growing pressure among git developers to make things more consistent for users and smooth over some of the roadblocks, including some of the confusion between the staging index and the working directory.
dreamcompiler 7y ago
Mercurial solves the same problem but does it in a much more intuitive fashion without compromises for power users. Saying git is optimised for power users is just after-the-fact rationalization of git's horrible UI.
nerdponx 7y ago
it's optimised to be maximally efficient for experienced users. Except it's not. It's an ad-hoc accretion of overlapping functions with unintuitive naming. An attempt is being made to rectify this with the "switch" command, but it's a long way from being optimized for anything at all.

aequitas 7y ago

I disagree. Git is complex solution to a complex problem (collaborative code management), so it's understandable there are complexities in mastering Git. However the UI of Git just doesn't make sense in some area's, especially to a newcomer. For a lot of people it's enough to understand the basic concepts with commands that make sense. But as it is right now the UI turns this in to hard to remember concepts and command arguments that belong more in a trivia quiz than a user guide. Also see: https://gitless.com/#research https://gitless.com/#research

jcranmer 7y ago

> Yes git isn't intuitive or self explanatory for newcomers, but that's only because it's optimised to be maximally efficient for experienced users. But that implies that a trade-off has to be there, which it does not. If you design your features well, it can both be quite intuitive for newcomers while still affording efficiency for experts. A great example is the staging area in git. It is a horrible feature, that causes lots of interactions with other commands that are inconsistent and unclear, especially for newcomers. How to do it better? Just make the staging area a full-fledged commit. Considering that it's already pretty easy to edit a commit anyways, promoting the workflow of just polishing a commit before publication is more intuitive for users, and it means questions like "how do I see what the diff of the staging area by itself is?" is really just "how do I see what the diff of a commit by itself is?" One of those questions I already know the answer to, the other I don't.

WorldMaker 7y ago
It is encouraging with the work going into the `git checkout` split into `git switch` and `git restore` that there is growing pressure among git developers to make things more consistent for users and smooth over some of the roadblocks, including some of the confusion between the staging index and the working directory.

dreamcompiler 7y ago

Mercurial solves the same problem but does it in a much more intuitive fashion without compromises for power users. Saying git is optimised for power users is just after-the-fact rationalization of git's horrible UI.

nerdponx 7y ago

it's optimised to be maximally efficient for experienced users. Except it's not. It's an ad-hoc accretion of overlapping functions with unintuitive naming. An attempt is being made to rectify this with the "switch" command, but it's a long way from being optimized for anything at all.