3 ms·
Fundamentally I don't disagree. Except that I see so much wasted effort in our industry trying to evolve just for the sake of enjoying trying new things, which
by oofbey 5y ago
Fundamentally I don't disagree. Except that I see so much wasted effort in our industry trying to evolve just for the sake of enjoying trying new things, which I find fundamentally super inefficient. I know that's how evolution works and eventually gets to a better place. I'm just relishing the fact that for once we agree on something.
On the complexity front I have a couple perspectives. First, the fundamental concepts you need to contribute to a code base aren't that hard. Which I think is why it survives and thrives. But the CLI tools are NOT very friendly. So secondly, you might think we just need better front-ends. And maybe there are by now? But I've hated every alternative front-end to git I've ever used, but maybe that's just me. I also don't use an IDE, so I'm obviously a bit of a dinosaur by nature.
- johannes1234321 5y ago> Except that I see so much wasted effort in our industry trying to evolve just for the sake of enjoying trying new things, which I find fundamentally super inefficient Why must it be so sufficient, with that narrow view on sufficiency. Fundamentally: If people annoy it, it is efficient in bringing joy, which in my view life should be about. But secondly if I take the same view on efficiency: I see so much time wasted with git, so many times a repository is broken due to a bad merge or somebody doing something wrong. This can't be peak tooling.