9 ms·

> Git is not nearly as confusing as people make it out to be. The people are confused, it's a fact. So it is confusing. Stop gaslighting people.

by kreco 3mo ago

Thanemate 3mo ago
>The people are confused, it's a fact. So it is confusing. Stop gaslighting people. I don't think this sort of aggression is warranted, as the fact that I find something confusing doesn't directly imply an intrinsic feature of the object that I'm confused with. One can reach that conclusion by observing that, not everyone who learns about the object finds it equally confusing. All that to say: "The people are confused" doesn't mean that "All people are confused".
- kreco 3mo ago
  There is no aggression. If your product has a reputation to confuse users compared to other products, your product confuses users. Let's not start to bend reality just to back up some narrative because after reading a N hours documentation everything is OK.
  - dspillett 3mo ago
    > Let's not start to bend reality just to back up some narrative because after reading a N hours documentation everything is OK. If you expect everything to be as easy as pie without needing to make a little effort to read a bit of documentation, then perhaps the problem is not the product but the fact that you are in the wrong industry, or the wrong role within that industry, for you. Have you considered a management track? Git is intended to make certain patterns possible, and practical. “Easy for people won't read some documentation” was never one of its design goals.
    - kreco 3mo ago
      You conveniently cherry picked the least relevant part of my message. No one said everything should be easy as pie. There are other software similar to git that have not such reputation. Version control is not new.
      - jamesnorden 3mo ago
        Because people actually use Git instead of whatever you mean.
        kreco 3mo ago
        This is irrelevant to the topic. I didn't ask why git was widely used. I didn't say git was useless. Again, there were version controls before git came out.
        echoangle 3mo ago
        I think the point was that a lot of people are confused by git because a lot of people use it. Meaning that the other software where people don’t complain would get the same amount of complaints if it had as many users as git has.
      - account42 3mo ago
        > There are other software similar to git that have not such reputation. Version control is not new. Yes, there are alternatives that aren't used by anyone except dedicated fans. If they had the wide user base that git enjoyed you'd hear just as many complaints about them.
    - BeetleB 3mo ago
      > If you expect everything to be as easy as pie without needing to make a little effort to read a bit of documentation Classic strawman.
  - ninkendo 3mo ago
    > If your product has a reputation to confuse users compared to other products, your product confuses users. Is your contention that all reputations are deserved, by definition? That’s certainly an interesting take. It leaves zero room for the concept of an “unfair reputation” for example. Maybe you should rethink your argument here.
    - kreco 3mo ago
      You are moving the goalposts. I could show you thousands of message backing up the confusion. But you can keep nitpick irrelevant part of messages and pretend you are very smart.
      - ninkendo 3mo ago
        You've made one and only one point in this thread so far: I'm addressing only that point. You've provided no other elaborations. You're saying "it has a reputation for being confusing, therefore it is confusing." That's a bullshit statement, IMO. If you made any other elaborations on why you disagree with the post you were arguing against, we'd have something else to discuss. But right now you're just posting shallow dismissals with fallacious arguments. You can do better.
        kreco 3mo ago
        > You've made one and only one point in this thread so far: I'm addressing only that point. You've provided no other elaborations. You're saying "it has a reputation for being confusing, therefore it is confusing." That's a bullshit statement, IMO. I'll repeat myself, I can show you thousands of messages point out how git is confusing. I can show you plenty of message saying "I used X it was fine, but I used git and it's cumbersome", please show me the same amount of messages telling "I used git it was fine, but I used XXX and it's cumbersome."
        ninkendo 3mo ago
        Git has many orders of magnitude more users than other VCS's. The assumption should be that you'd find many orders of magnitude more people finding it confusing than other VCS's. Even if the UX was more or less the same. I'm also not claiming git isn't confusing (I've explained that it is, in another post), I'm claiming its reputation is undeserved, in that it's not as confusing as people make it out to be. You seem to reject the notion that such a statement is even valid, claiming that reputations are always deserved. I find that to be bullshit.
xeyownt 3mo ago
If you ignore gravitation, a sphere earth can be very confusing.
- andawaywego 3mo ago
  plenty of models do fine with assuming a flat earth. git is an incredibly competent swiss army knife for building VCS but I'm not convinced it's the best we can ever do (nor we have ever done) for the simple linear history we expect from your usual corpo crud.
- swat535 3mo ago
  If your system's public API requires me to understand all the internals to use it, then it's indeed confusing.
  - skydhash 3mo ago
    The common stance is that people try to use said API without reading the docs. Like the first paragraphs of the git-rebase description Transplant a series of commits onto a different starting point. You can also use git rebase to reorder or combine commits: see INTERACTIVE MODE below for how to do that. And then later Rebasing interactively means that you have a chance to edit the commits which are rebased. You can reorder the commits, and you can remove them (weeding out bad or otherwise unwanted patches). Those are obvious IF you know what a commit is and how they relate to each other (a DAG). But most people don’t. Instead, their only knowledge is what they’ve seen the operation do (tutorial or youtube video). Git itself has a glossary[0] of the terms used in the docs. [0] https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary/2.54.0 https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary/2.54.0
dspillett 3mo ago
But not as many people are as confused as is sometimes made out. And those who are confused are not as confused as people make out¹. Implying that a great many people are very confused because some are is far more gaslighty than suggesting it isn't that hard in the majority of circumstances, IMO. -------- [1] many (and I'd include myself here) are fine using the basics, perhaps with some less as-simple-as-possible workflows, but might need to scan the docs if they hit a conflict merging two branches that have developed independently for a fair few commits and have overlaps
ninkendo 3mo ago
There’s this important word in the sentence you seem to be ignoring: “as” GP isn’t saying “git isn’t confusing”, they’re saying “git isn’t as confusing as people make it out to be” The point being, people exaggerate git’s confusingness when discussing it. There’s an element of irrationality here that’s worth bringing up, especially when it comes to comparing it to competing software. Once it has a reputation for being confusing, you’re more likely to be scared of certain workflows, you avoid them, and the problem compounds. Similarly if a VCS has a reputation for being “simple”, people might gravitate to it, learn it first, then parrot conclusions that git is too complicated because they never really gave git a chance in the first place (often they do take the time to read the other VCS’s documentation, and if they would have done the same for git they would have had no problems.) It doesn’t help that there are so many bad tutorials out there that simply give you what commands to run, and tell you dumb stuff like “just make another clone if you get stuck”, and that makes the problem so much worse, and isn’t git’s fault. Git is a bit confusing sometimes, but it’s mostly for reasons like “the reset and checkout commands do too much”, and “some low level commands are easy to confuse with high level commands” not because it’s a fundamentally confusing tool.
- kreco 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ninkendo 3mo ago
    You just did though… Maybe try and explain in more than one-sentence quips why you think git deserves its reputation? Otherwise you’re just coming off as a bit of a troll. Have a nice day.
    - munksbeer 3mo ago
      Disclaimer: I love git, it is by far the best version control system I've used in nearly 25+ years. But, his point is objective, so he doesn't need to provide subjective proof to you. Do lots of people find git confusing? Yes. It is a very common view. Therefore, based only on observed evidence, we can pretty confidently say that git is confusing. Is it as confusing as something else, or as confusing as the reputation? We can't tell, because those are subjective opinions. The statement "it isn't as confusing as people think" is pretty meaningless here, because you can only judge from your own frame of reference. If it wasn't as confusing as people think, why do they think it is confusing? Are they all stupid?
xelxebar 3mo ago
Interesting. "A is X" is different than "I experience X from A". The former employs an objectivist lens while the latter a subjectivist one. I have had the pleasure of witnessing debates about whether a room really, truly is cold or not, which all resulted from a simple "it is cold in here" comment. In my experience modern English speakers tend to bias toward the objectivist register while Japan tends the other way. One of the joys in my life is how absorbing languages and cultures elucidates previously-unperceived distinctions. This discussion makes me want to try picking up Ithkuil again. /r

> Git is not nearly as confusing as people make it out to be. The people are confused, it's a fact. So it is confusing. Stop gaslighting people.

by kreco 3mo ago

> Git is not nearly as confusing as people make it out to be. The people are confused, it's a fact. So it is confusing. Stop gaslighting people.

Thanemate 3mo ago

>The people are confused, it's a fact. So it is confusing. Stop gaslighting people. I don't think this sort of aggression is warranted, as the fact that I find something confusing doesn't directly imply an intrinsic feature of the object that I'm confused with. One can reach that conclusion by observing that, not everyone who learns about the object finds it equally confusing. All that to say: "The people are confused" doesn't mean that "All people are confused".

kreco 3mo ago
There is no aggression. If your product has a reputation to confuse users compared to other products, your product confuses users. Let's not start to bend reality just to back up some narrative because after reading a N hours documentation everything is OK.
- dspillett 3mo ago
  > Let's not start to bend reality just to back up some narrative because after reading a N hours documentation everything is OK. If you expect everything to be as easy as pie without needing to make a little effort to read a bit of documentation, then perhaps the problem is not the product but the fact that you are in the wrong industry, or the wrong role within that industry, for you. Have you considered a management track? Git is intended to make certain patterns possible, and practical. “Easy for people won't read some documentation” was never one of its design goals.
  - kreco 3mo ago
    You conveniently cherry picked the least relevant part of my message. No one said everything should be easy as pie. There are other software similar to git that have not such reputation. Version control is not new.
    - jamesnorden 3mo ago
      Because people actually use Git instead of whatever you mean.
      - kreco 3mo ago
        This is irrelevant to the topic. I didn't ask why git was widely used. I didn't say git was useless. Again, there were version controls before git came out.
        echoangle 3mo ago
        I think the point was that a lot of people are confused by git because a lot of people use it. Meaning that the other software where people don’t complain would get the same amount of complaints if it had as many users as git has.
    - account42 3mo ago
      > There are other software similar to git that have not such reputation. Version control is not new. Yes, there are alternatives that aren't used by anyone except dedicated fans. If they had the wide user base that git enjoyed you'd hear just as many complaints about them.
  - BeetleB 3mo ago
    > If you expect everything to be as easy as pie without needing to make a little effort to read a bit of documentation Classic strawman.
- ninkendo 3mo ago
  > If your product has a reputation to confuse users compared to other products, your product confuses users. Is your contention that all reputations are deserved, by definition? That’s certainly an interesting take. It leaves zero room for the concept of an “unfair reputation” for example. Maybe you should rethink your argument here.
  - kreco 3mo ago
    You are moving the goalposts. I could show you thousands of message backing up the confusion. But you can keep nitpick irrelevant part of messages and pretend you are very smart.
    - ninkendo 3mo ago
      You've made one and only one point in this thread so far: I'm addressing only that point. You've provided no other elaborations. You're saying "it has a reputation for being confusing, therefore it is confusing." That's a bullshit statement, IMO. If you made any other elaborations on why you disagree with the post you were arguing against, we'd have something else to discuss. But right now you're just posting shallow dismissals with fallacious arguments. You can do better.
      - kreco 3mo ago
        > You've made one and only one point in this thread so far: I'm addressing only that point. You've provided no other elaborations. You're saying "it has a reputation for being confusing, therefore it is confusing." That's a bullshit statement, IMO. I'll repeat myself, I can show you thousands of messages point out how git is confusing. I can show you plenty of message saying "I used X it was fine, but I used git and it's cumbersome", please show me the same amount of messages telling "I used git it was fine, but I used XXX and it's cumbersome."
        ninkendo 3mo ago
        Git has many orders of magnitude more users than other VCS's. The assumption should be that you'd find many orders of magnitude more people finding it confusing than other VCS's. Even if the UX was more or less the same. I'm also not claiming git isn't confusing (I've explained that it is, in another post), I'm claiming its reputation is undeserved, in that it's not as confusing as people make it out to be. You seem to reject the notion that such a statement is even valid, claiming that reputations are always deserved. I find that to be bullshit.

xeyownt 3mo ago

If you ignore gravitation, a sphere earth can be very confusing.

andawaywego 3mo ago
plenty of models do fine with assuming a flat earth. git is an incredibly competent swiss army knife for building VCS but I'm not convinced it's the best we can ever do (nor we have ever done) for the simple linear history we expect from your usual corpo crud.
swat535 3mo ago
If your system's public API requires me to understand all the internals to use it, then it's indeed confusing.
- skydhash 3mo ago
  The common stance is that people try to use said API without reading the docs. Like the first paragraphs of the git-rebase description Transplant a series of commits onto a different starting point. You can also use git rebase to reorder or combine commits: see INTERACTIVE MODE below for how to do that. And then later Rebasing interactively means that you have a chance to edit the commits which are rebased. You can reorder the commits, and you can remove them (weeding out bad or otherwise unwanted patches). Those are obvious IF you know what a commit is and how they relate to each other (a DAG). But most people don’t. Instead, their only knowledge is what they’ve seen the operation do (tutorial or youtube video). Git itself has a glossary[0] of the terms used in the docs. [0] https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary/2.54.0 https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary/2.54.0

dspillett 3mo ago

But not as many people are as confused as is sometimes made out. And those who are confused are not as confused as people make out¹. Implying that a great many people are very confused because some are is far more gaslighty than suggesting it isn't that hard in the majority of circumstances, IMO. -------- [1] many (and I'd include myself here) are fine using the basics, perhaps with some less as-simple-as-possible workflows, but might need to scan the docs if they hit a conflict merging two branches that have developed independently for a fair few commits and have overlaps

ninkendo 3mo ago

There’s this important word in the sentence you seem to be ignoring: “as” GP isn’t saying “git isn’t confusing”, they’re saying “git isn’t as confusing as people make it out to be” The point being, people exaggerate git’s confusingness when discussing it. There’s an element of irrationality here that’s worth bringing up, especially when it comes to comparing it to competing software. Once it has a reputation for being confusing, you’re more likely to be scared of certain workflows, you avoid them, and the problem compounds. Similarly if a VCS has a reputation for being “simple”, people might gravitate to it, learn it first, then parrot conclusions that git is too complicated because they never really gave git a chance in the first place (often they do take the time to read the other VCS’s documentation, and if they would have done the same for git they would have had no problems.) It doesn’t help that there are so many bad tutorials out there that simply give you what commands to run, and tell you dumb stuff like “just make another clone if you get stuck”, and that makes the problem so much worse, and isn’t git’s fault. Git is a bit confusing sometimes, but it’s mostly for reasons like “the reset and checkout commands do too much”, and “some low level commands are easy to confuse with high level commands” not because it’s a fundamentally confusing tool.

kreco 3mo ago
[flagged]
- ninkendo 3mo ago
  You just did though… Maybe try and explain in more than one-sentence quips why you think git deserves its reputation? Otherwise you’re just coming off as a bit of a troll. Have a nice day.
  - munksbeer 3mo ago
    Disclaimer: I love git, it is by far the best version control system I've used in nearly 25+ years. But, his point is objective, so he doesn't need to provide subjective proof to you. Do lots of people find git confusing? Yes. It is a very common view. Therefore, based only on observed evidence, we can pretty confidently say that git is confusing. Is it as confusing as something else, or as confusing as the reputation? We can't tell, because those are subjective opinions. The statement "it isn't as confusing as people think" is pretty meaningless here, because you can only judge from your own frame of reference. If it wasn't as confusing as people think, why do they think it is confusing? Are they all stupid?

xelxebar 3mo ago

Interesting. "A is X" is different than "I experience X from A". The former employs an objectivist lens while the latter a subjectivist one. I have had the pleasure of witnessing debates about whether a room really, truly is cold or not, which all resulted from a simple "it is cold in here" comment. In my experience modern English speakers tend to bias toward the objectivist register while Japan tends the other way. One of the joys in my life is how absorbing languages and cultures elucidates previously-unperceived distinctions. This discussion makes me want to try picking up Ithkuil again. /r