4 ms·

I disagree. While what you're saying is true there's other side to the issue. The command line tools are simply more versatile and configurable. We can try to

by p2t2p 6y ago

I disagree. While what you're saying is true there's other side to the issue. The command line tools are simply more versatile and configurable. We can try to take git clone command as an example and try to design a GUI dialogue which would allow to use all the options it has. I think it is very hard and you will end up with something looking scarier than space shuttle cockpit. I believe it'll take roughly the same time to make sense of that dialog that it takes me to quickly man git-clone to remind myself about some obscure option I don't use everyday. I don't hate on GUIs, I just think that it is very hard to design full-featured GUI for complicated tools that we use every day. I would like to see an attempt to do this for Git, the key is being full-featured.

flohofwoe 6y ago
I think that's more because the standard git client was designed with command line usage in mind and UI usage had been ignored at that step. Had the goal been a hybrid GUI/CLI from the start than the entire git workflow might look different (which wouldn't be a bad thing IMHO, because the git command line UX isn't all that great either).
- smichel17 6y ago
  This is my criticism of most git GUIs. They try to provide 1:1 functionality with the command line. But this defeats the purpose -- instead of making it more obvious what every button will do, it adds an additional layer of complexity where now I have to guess which CLI operation that button maps to. But the point of the GUI is that it's more accessible than the CLI. If you have to learn the CLI interface anyway in order to use the GUI, it is wasting a huge amount of potential.
  - NateEag 6y ago
    Magit actually solves this problem, to a certain extent. It makes Git more discoverable and easier to use, IMO. Prior to trying it I was a hardcore git terminal user. I still drop to the terminal sometimes, but magit has won me over for the day-to-day normal workflows. You have to use Emacs for Magit, as it's an Emacs Lisp package, but it really is worth trying in its own right. https://magit.vc/ https://magit.vc/

by p2t2p 6y ago

flohofwoe 6y ago

I think that's more because the standard git client was designed with command line usage in mind and UI usage had been ignored at that step. Had the goal been a hybrid GUI/CLI from the start than the entire git workflow might look different (which wouldn't be a bad thing IMHO, because the git command line UX isn't all that great either).

smichel17 6y ago
This is my criticism of most git GUIs. They try to provide 1:1 functionality with the command line. But this defeats the purpose -- instead of making it more obvious what every button will do, it adds an additional layer of complexity where now I have to guess which CLI operation that button maps to. But the point of the GUI is that it's more accessible than the CLI. If you have to learn the CLI interface anyway in order to use the GUI, it is wasting a huge amount of potential.
- NateEag 6y ago
  Magit actually solves this problem, to a certain extent. It makes Git more discoverable and easier to use, IMO. Prior to trying it I was a hardcore git terminal user. I still drop to the terminal sometimes, but magit has won me over for the day-to-day normal workflows. You have to use Emacs for Magit, as it's an Emacs Lisp package, but it really is worth trying in its own right. https://magit.vc/ https://magit.vc/