Hacker News Reader

Comment by totallywrong | Hacker News Reader

There's plenty wrong with git from a usability standpoint. We've all grokked it over time but it's far from having a good UX.

View on HN

I've used git for the last 7 years and I've had no problems with it. If a developer is not willing to invest their time into learning simple basic git commands and concepts then I think they're in the wrong business.

Have you tried Mercurial? The Git user interface is a mess in comparison, since it evolved from a collection of loosely related scripts rather than being cohesively designed. Git does the same things and works fine once you learn it, but there's a lot of unnecessary inconsistencies to learn.

I've moved from Git to Mercurial and I hate it. It's just baby duck syndrome.

I'm sorry but someone who is unable to determine problems with a tool they've used for 7 years is a huge red flag. That sort of blindness to frustrations is legitimately a massive problem in this field.

If you find that easy, please list some specific flaws of git. None of that "it's like, confusing, man".

of the top of my head there's handling of binaries, shallow clones, submodule support, subdirectory clones

Git is the only software where the need for learning its internals is recommended

It is a sign of huge failure of API design

If ppl need to spend tens of hours to learn letters management app then it has terrible api and ux

But I never get frustrated with git. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I've encountered people who use features like rebase because they like to keep history "tidy" (I assume?), I think it introduces unnecessary complexity and IMO history should kept as-is, it's history after all.

Rofl

Git is the only software where the need for learning its internals is recommended

It is a sign of huge failure of API design

Reply on news.ycombinator.com