7 ms·
To the op's point, using git is not the act of coding or in this example making cabinets. I think it would be more akin to a work flow used by a cabinet maker a
by bostonsre 5y ago
To the op's point, using git is not the act of coding or in this example making cabinets. I think it would be more akin to a work flow used by a cabinet maker and I think people would be less likely to look down on one that has an idiosyncratic work flow. It may not be the most optimal work flow, but they can get the job done well following their methods.
I don't subscribe to that thinking and I try to optimize and improve wherever I can, but developers are an idiosyncratic bunch. You can lead them to water or show them how to fish but lots of good developers just like to do things their own way.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoIt's about tools. Git (and revision/version control more generally) is a tool available for you to use when developing software. The questions for me are: do you use the tool? do you understand the tool? I think it's fine if someone says "I don't use that tool". I personally think that they are making their life harder and their software probably worse, but that seems like a valid choice. What I have a difficult time with is someone who says "I use that tool, but I limit my understanding of it to be as little as I can, because understanding my tools is not part of my job". That's what I felt the OP was doing.
- bostonsre 5y agoSurely some tools have to be more important than others tho and not knowing some tools impacts some jobs less. Is git a saw for woodworking? Or is it a tool chest that has a drawer for a saw? If you need to use a thousand different tools, the tool chest becomes more important (the analogy doesn't map well there but it seems similar to working on a bunch of repos that have a bunch of branches or one repo with one branch). If you only need a handful, it seems like it would impact your job less.