6 ms·

Well that explains why Git has such a god awful API. Maybe he should've done some prototyping too.

by tsss 2y ago

indigoabstract 2y ago
Yeah, could be.. IIRC, he said he doesn't find version control and databases interesting. So he just did what had to be done, did it quickly and then delegated, so he could get back to more satisfying work. I can relate to that.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mejutoco 2y ago
On the other side the hooks system of git is very good api design imo.
QuercusMax 2y ago
What do you mean by API? Linus's original got didn't have an API, just a bunch of low level C commands ('plumbing'). The CLI ('porcelain') was originally just wrappers around the plumbing.
- Maxatar 2y ago
  Those C functions are the API for git.
ranger_danger 2y ago
baseless conjecture
patmcc 2y ago
I'm going to take a stab here: you've never used cvs or svn. git, for all its warts, is quite literally a 10x improvement on those, which is what it was (mostly) competing with.
- commandar 2y ago
  It's really hard to overstate how much of a sea change git was. It's very rare that a new piece of software just completely supplants existing solutions as widely and quickly as git did in the version control space.
  - fransje26 2y ago
    And all that because the company owning the commercial version control system they had been using free of charge until that point got greedy, and wanted them to start paying for its use. Their greed literally killed their own business model, and brought us a better versioning system. Bless their greedy heart.
- dave78 2y ago
  I started my career with Clearcase (ick) and added CVS for personal projects shortly after. CVS always kind of sucked, even compared with Clearcase. Subversion was a massive improvement, and I was pretty happy with it for a long time. I resisted moving from Subversion to Git for a while but eventually caved like nearly everyone else. After learning it sufficiently, I now enjoy Git, and I think the model it uses is better in nearly every way than Subversion. But the point of the parent of your post is correct, in my opinion. The Git interface sucks. Subversion's was much more consistent, and therefore better. Imagine how much better Git could be if it had had a little more thought and consistency put into the interface. I thought it was pretty universally agreed that the Git interface sucks. I'm surprised to see someone arguing otherwise.
  - stoperaticless 2y ago
    > I thought it was pretty universally agreed Depends what you consider “universally agreed”. At least one person (me) thinks that: git interface is good enough as is (function>form here), regexps are not too terse - that’s the whole point of them. Related if you squint a lot: https://prog21.dadgum.com/170.html https://prog21.dadgum.com/170.html
  - QuercusMax 2y ago

Well that explains why Git has such a god awful API. Maybe he should've done some prototyping too.

by tsss 2y ago

Well that explains why Git has such a god awful API. Maybe he should've done some prototyping too.

Yeah, could be.. IIRC, he said he doesn't find version control and databases interesting. So he just did what had to be done, did it quickly and then delegated, so he could get back to more satisfying work. I can relate to that.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mejutoco 2y ago

On the other side the hooks system of git is very good api design imo.

QuercusMax 2y ago

What do you mean by API? Linus's original got didn't have an API, just a bunch of low level C commands ('plumbing'). The CLI ('porcelain') was originally just wrappers around the plumbing.

Maxatar 2y ago
Those C functions are the API for git.

ranger_danger 2y ago

baseless conjecture

patmcc 2y ago

I'm going to take a stab here: you've never used cvs or svn. git, for all its warts, is quite literally a 10x improvement on those, which is what it was (mostly) competing with.

commandar 2y ago
It's really hard to overstate how much of a sea change git was. It's very rare that a new piece of software just completely supplants existing solutions as widely and quickly as git did in the version control space.
- fransje26 2y ago
  And all that because the company owning the commercial version control system they had been using free of charge until that point got greedy, and wanted them to start paying for its use. Their greed literally killed their own business model, and brought us a better versioning system. Bless their greedy heart.
dave78 2y ago
I started my career with Clearcase (ick) and added CVS for personal projects shortly after. CVS always kind of sucked, even compared with Clearcase. Subversion was a massive improvement, and I was pretty happy with it for a long time. I resisted moving from Subversion to Git for a while but eventually caved like nearly everyone else. After learning it sufficiently, I now enjoy Git, and I think the model it uses is better in nearly every way than Subversion. But the point of the parent of your post is correct, in my opinion. The Git interface sucks. Subversion's was much more consistent, and therefore better. Imagine how much better Git could be if it had had a little more thought and consistency put into the interface. I thought it was pretty universally agreed that the Git interface sucks. I'm surprised to see someone arguing otherwise.
- stoperaticless 2y ago
  > I thought it was pretty universally agreed Depends what you consider “universally agreed”. At least one person (me) thinks that: git interface is good enough as is (function>form here), regexps are not too terse - that’s the whole point of them. Related if you squint a lot: https://prog21.dadgum.com/170.html https://prog21.dadgum.com/170.html
- QuercusMax 2y ago