4 ms·
> I think the people not satisfied with git are told that is a result of them not understanding it. People are told this because it's generally true. Of course
by g4zj 3y ago
> I think the people not satisfied with git are told that is a result of them not understanding it.
People are told this because it's generally true. Of course, it's not the case for everyone, but I find that most criticisms of the tool focus heavily on remembering how to use it.
(The author does mention some missing features, which is valid, but git can't be everything for everyone. In those cases, perhaps it's not the appropriate tool.)
> I need to always deeply understand the difference between reset, revert, [...]
> You need to remember that push and pull [...]
> When it comes to merging, you need to think through the logic [...]
Yes, you need to understand, remember, and think. Git (and other similar tools) solve a complex problem and doing so in a simple way would likely restrict teams into a small set of possible workflows.
I find that using git is quite simple once the project team has established the processes where the tool is used, and understands git's role in those processes. In my experience, most day-to-day tasks involve using the same small handful of git subcommands, and issues that arise are quite easily fixable.
- deliriumchn 3y agoquite enterteining that majority of "I don't like X" articles are coming from people who can't use the tool because they're lazy to understand basics
- deely3 3y ago> because they're lazy to understand basics or because tool is unnecessary complicated?
- computerdork 3y agoI don't know, the person writing this article seems to understand git and doesn't like it (and yeah, I agree with him, and I'm good with git too, but think it's unnecessarily complicated - Perforce does everything Git does, and it's way easier to use, although it is a paid product).
- duggan 3y agogit is fundamentally a sort of database. If people think about it as having a not-dissimilar level of complexity, use cases, and users to Postgres, the complexity shouldn't be too surprising. Like anything used by a lot of people to solve real problems, it has warts and duct tape, but, honestly, git feels like the least troublesome part of my daily workflow.
- professoretc 3y agoYeah, but if every project, no matter how small, required you to spin up and maintain a full Postgres install, surely you'd start thinking, there has to be something easier than this... The problem with Git is the same kind of problem Excel has: everyone can (correctly) claim to only use 20% of its features, thus everyone can say "Git is too complex!". But the problem is that everyone uses a different 20% of Git; Git is the union of the solutions to lots of different problems.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoSure, if a few people have trouble because they didn't pay attention or don't get it that's fine. But if most users of the tool struggle to remember how to use it and using it right requires significant thought, it's a bad tool (or at least, a bad UI).
- mamcx 3y ago> People are told this because it's generally true. Of course, it's not the case for everyone, but I find that most criticisms of the tool focus heavily on remembering how to use it. Another way to look at this is that Git is a bad UX for what the correct and convenient tool for development is. Is like when people wanna do JOINs but what you have is documents and map-reduce. Sure, you can bend towards it, but then the tool is ill-suited. "So pick a better tool" We do (mercurial). Sadly `git` won.