3 ms·

> I think it's better -- in the most pessimistic case -- to look at jj as reframing how you think about branches and commits in the same way that learning a typ

> I think it's better -- in the most pessimistic case -- to look at jj as reframing how you think about branches and commits in the same way that learning a type of Lisp reframes your thinking even if you're a full time Python developer and have zero intention of ever using a Lisp. For some reason this actually had me pause in fear. I've been using git deeply for years and find it very natural and mindless to use at this point. The thought that I might again be trapped in Plato's cave like I found I had been prior to learning Common Lisp is actually disturbing... Now I don't have a choice but to give jj a shot

riwsky 2y ago
Bruce Lee has that quote: “ I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” If Lisp’s “one kick” is the cons list, then jj’s is the commit: by using them for everything (they replace, at least, the git stash, index, and working copy) you actually get really fluent in manipulating them and they become more powerful than special-cased tools.
steveklabnik 2y ago
I loved git for a long time. I never understood the folks that said git’s UX was too hard. I’ll never go back after jj. Be warned, haha.
stouset 2y ago
Can’t wait to hear your experience. I felt the same way and I’m a convert now.