3 ms·

Ah, nothing like pointing out someone else's flaws to feel better about your own. Git is powerful but hard to learn and is often not intuitive. Knowing Hg als

• the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
  I just find it unfair criticism because hg has just as many UI kinks or just lack of UI to begin with. `hg diff` or how it's randomly split into different commands with a `-p` flag is just one example.
  • bvdbijl 14y ago
    Hg having kinks is not an excuse for git to have kinks too
    • w0utert 14y ago
      And, in addition to that, I find it very hard to believe that anyone who used both can sincerely say Hg's CLI interface is 'just as bad' as git's. I've used both and switched to git eventually, because from a technical point of view it's simply the better tool. Git is faster, more flexible, easier to deploy. The things it is not: more intuitive, easier, more consistent. I don't understand why many git apologists continue to try to paper over the atrocious CLI that comes with git by blaming the user for not knowing his tools well enough. The tool is supposed to serve the user, not the other way around. Personally I think everything about the git CLI sucks, plain and simple. The command structure and naming, the switches, the error messages, the documentation, all of it. Compared to git, the hg CLI is a thing of beauty. Yet I still prefer git over Hg. No need to sugarcoat it and pretend git is flawless though.
      • thedufer 14y ago
        > Git is faster This is a bold claim, and depends on a lot of variables. On very large repos, git is completely unusable.