4 ms·

My take is completely opposite from yours. I think it's great when someone "gets" that git is an extremely powerful and capable tool with a horribly unintuitive

My take is completely opposite from yours. I think it's great when someone "gets" that git is an extremely powerful and capable tool with a horribly unintuitive user interface. Whether you call that "complexity" or just "terrible UX", to me that's a sign that someone has good instincts regarding the risks associated with this kind of "complexity". Whether I agree that a decision to shun git for that reason is justified depends on the specific situation. > ... that I should minimize my exposure to them. I’d never work in a team that dumb ... That sort of arrogance is an important signal to me that I should limit my exposure to the people displaying it. I personally see this sort of attitude as a sign that there may be a dangerous lack of empathy on their side, and I've seen that go south too often.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
^ this. The comment's arrogance and narrow-mindedness is preposterous, and would be a strong signal to me to stay away. I find Git's CLI and workflow model complex because I had the "misfortune" of using other DVCS products (Mercurial, Bitkeeper, Bazaar NG, Darcs, etc) before it. All did a far superior job of presenting roughly the same conceptual model in their command-line tools. Git's is a step backwards. Git didn't invent distributed version control, it didn't perfect it, it wasn't particularly superior to the others [it does have some benefits in terms of performance tho, yes], it was merely at the right place (the Linux kernel when Linus got sick of Bitkeeper's business model) at the right time (when people finally got sick of CVS and SVN garbage.) And the rise of GitHub was certainly part of the rise of Git's prominence. Slightly different circumstances and it could have been any of the other open source distributed revision control systems instead.
prepend 4y ago
> That sort of arrogance is an important signal to me that I should limit my exposure to the people displaying it. Different strokes for different folks and not everyone is capable of working together. Comically, people like you would find your comment also arrogant and stay away from both of us. For what it’s worth, I work on empathy quite a bit and my filter is based on the idea that it saves both me and the other party pain. I don’t want to work in a team where developers are tolerated giving up on super basic technologies like git (what else isn’t tolerated “oh, tcp/ip is just too complex for developers, I give up”) and they probably don’t want me to work with them. I think one of the best things about technology is that people have great capability to solve problems. Giving up is a bad characteristic. Asking for help is important. Having teams of various skill sets is important. But giving up on basic things instead of getting help and figuring it out is bad as a permanent state for a team.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

^ this. The comment's arrogance and narrow-mindedness is preposterous, and would be a strong signal to me to stay away. I find Git's CLI and workflow model complex because I had the "misfortune" of using other DVCS products (Mercurial, Bitkeeper, Bazaar NG, Darcs, etc) before it. All did a far superior job of presenting roughly the same conceptual model in their command-line tools. Git's is a step backwards. Git didn't invent distributed version control, it didn't perfect it, it wasn't particularly superior to the others [it does have some benefits in terms of performance tho, yes], it was merely at the right place (the Linux kernel when Linus got sick of Bitkeeper's business model) at the right time (when people finally got sick of CVS and SVN garbage.) And the rise of GitHub was certainly part of the rise of Git's prominence. Slightly different circumstances and it could have been any of the other open source distributed revision control systems instead.

prepend 4y ago

> That sort of arrogance is an important signal to me that I should limit my exposure to the people displaying it. Different strokes for different folks and not everyone is capable of working together. Comically, people like you would find your comment also arrogant and stay away from both of us. For what it’s worth, I work on empathy quite a bit and my filter is based on the idea that it saves both me and the other party pain. I don’t want to work in a team where developers are tolerated giving up on super basic technologies like git (what else isn’t tolerated “oh, tcp/ip is just too complex for developers, I give up”) and they probably don’t want me to work with them. I think one of the best things about technology is that people have great capability to solve problems. Giving up is a bad characteristic. Asking for help is important. Having teams of various skill sets is important. But giving up on basic things instead of getting help and figuring it out is bad as a permanent state for a team.