4 ms·
So in exchange for a little speed we are stuck with one of the most user hostile tools out there. That's not the deal I would have wanted to make. The interface
by chx 2y ago
So in exchange for a little speed we are stuck with one of the most user hostile tools out there. That's not the deal I would have wanted to make. The interface is atrocious as some switches change completely what the command does -- this was partially acknowledged and fixed in git switch but there's so much more, it loses work way too easily and some of the concepts are near impossible to grok. (I did learn git eventually but that doesn't mean I like it. It's more of an uneasy truce than a friendship.)
- kstrauser 2y agoIt wasn't a little speed. Other options were many times slower. I just renamed a large subdir in a large project. `time git status` took 41ms. That kind of speed lets you add all sorts of interactivity that would be impractical if it were slower. For instance, my shell prompt shows whether the current directory is managed by Git, and if so, whether the status is clean. I would never tolerate my terminal being detectably slowed by such a thing. With git, it's not. There are a thousand little ways where having tooling be fast enough is make-or-break: if it's not, people don't use it. Git is fast enough for all the most common operations. Other options were not.