3 ms·
the core issue with GIT is this: it requires cognitive overhead. JJ doesn't seem to solve that.
by whoomp12342 2y ago
the core issue with GIT is this: it requires cognitive overhead. JJ doesn't seem to solve that.
- steveklabnik 2y agoCan you say more? I find jj to be easier to reason about, but that’s not the same thing.
- stouset 2y agoHaving used both, jj imposes dramatically less cognitive overhead. I was (am?) a git expert and power user. In a month I began trusting jj to a level I never did after using git shortly after its first official releases. I “blindly” undertake repo changes that I’d double or triple check before doing in git. It’s better to a degree I never would have believed before I gave it a shot.
- KingMob 2y agoI would say it's about the same. jj adds some concepts, like change/revisions and revsets, but it also has lower cognitive load than git on things like branches, the index, and the CLI. The ease of undoing anything alone makes it way easier to learn jj, since you can be fearless. It's not quite clear to me how much simpler DVCS concepts can be.