3 ms·

I never really understood why the majority of developers insist on using the git CLI, when modern UI clients like GitKraken [0] are perfectly usable and very he

I never really understood why the majority of developers insist on using the git CLI, when modern UI clients like GitKraken [0] are perfectly usable and very helpful. :shrug: [0] https://www.gitkraken.com/ https://www.gitkraken.com/

mgbmtl 3y ago
Looks neat, but I tend to get way too distracted by graphical interfaces. I assume it's really a question of personal preference. CLIs are faster to use, but have a bigger learning curve. (we will probably not solve that debate here, but I do wonder sometimes, whether to recommend the CLI or not) Most of my git usage on the CLI is nothing fancy, just a few commands, but I keep a text file for some tips/tricks I don't use regularly.
sodapopcan 3y ago
Shrug back at ya. I find the cli perfectly usable. I use an editor plugin as well but if I'm already on the command line I use it there. Having to switch to a different program just to make a commit kills the desire to commit often.
kraftman 3y ago
I do as little with git as possible unless im facinng some very specific issues, so for me at least it seems overkill to use a GUI for essentially just push, pull, and checkout.
quectophoton 3y ago
Knowledge of the CLI transfers to writing scripts. Knowledge learned from using Git in scripts transfers to day-to-day use. Also, if I SSH into my Raspberry Pi that I'm using as server, I don't want to feel useless just because I'm forced to use a CLI. I'm not entirely against using a GUI, it's just that at this point I'm more efficient using the CLI, and I don't want to spend effort searching for a GUI that is: * Good-looking. * Is native, not an outdated vendored copy of a web browser. * Doesn't have telemetry, or at least it's disabled by default. * Is fully open source; not open-core or proprietary. * I can reasonably expect that it won't disappear 5 years in the future. * That it doesn't make things more confusing. Like for example Visual Studio[1] having a button that very ominously says "Accept merge", when it really means "Mark conflict as resolved". If an IDE wants to use its own cute way of labelling things, good; I can accept more friendly terms that make it more approachable for a wider audience. But at least don't make things confusing for people that already expect certain words to mean certain things. * That I can trust that it won't "helpfully" do fancy stuff, like having a button saying "Commit changes" that "helpfully" also pushes to remote. I don't know if any GUI does this, but my trust is low. [1]: I had to use it at a previous company because it was the only realistic way to work with their codebase.

mgbmtl 3y ago

Looks neat, but I tend to get way too distracted by graphical interfaces. I assume it's really a question of personal preference. CLIs are faster to use, but have a bigger learning curve. (we will probably not solve that debate here, but I do wonder sometimes, whether to recommend the CLI or not) Most of my git usage on the CLI is nothing fancy, just a few commands, but I keep a text file for some tips/tricks I don't use regularly.

sodapopcan 3y ago

Shrug back at ya. I find the cli perfectly usable. I use an editor plugin as well but if I'm already on the command line I use it there. Having to switch to a different program just to make a commit kills the desire to commit often.

kraftman 3y ago

I do as little with git as possible unless im facinng some very specific issues, so for me at least it seems overkill to use a GUI for essentially just push, pull, and checkout.

quectophoton 3y ago

Knowledge of the CLI transfers to writing scripts. Knowledge learned from using Git in scripts transfers to day-to-day use. Also, if I SSH into my Raspberry Pi that I'm using as server, I don't want to feel useless just because I'm forced to use a CLI. I'm not entirely against using a GUI, it's just that at this point I'm more efficient using the CLI, and I don't want to spend effort searching for a GUI that is: * Good-looking. * Is native, not an outdated vendored copy of a web browser. * Doesn't have telemetry, or at least it's disabled by default. * Is fully open source; not open-core or proprietary. * I can reasonably expect that it won't disappear 5 years in the future. * That it doesn't make things more confusing. Like for example Visual Studio[1] having a button that very ominously says "Accept merge", when it really means "Mark conflict as resolved". If an IDE wants to use its own cute way of labelling things, good; I can accept more friendly terms that make it more approachable for a wider audience. But at least don't make things confusing for people that already expect certain words to mean certain things. * That I can trust that it won't "helpfully" do fancy stuff, like having a button saying "Commit changes" that "helpfully" also pushes to remote. I don't know if any GUI does this, but my trust is low. [1]: I had to use it at a previous company because it was the only realistic way to work with their codebase.