Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell

git.sr.ht

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 235 posts

Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell

#131

Post by sbergot »

wkjagt wrote: post #52
ddevault wrote: post #22

Hiya HN. I was ranting on Mastodon earlier today because I feel like people learn git the wrong way - from the outside in, instead of the inside out. I reasoned that git internals are pretty simple and easy to understand, and that the supposedly obtuse interface makes a lot more sense when you approach it with an understanding of the fundamentals in hand. I said that the internals were so simple that you could implem…

> instead of the inside out Now the name makes even more sense. I first read it as sh/git, but reading it as something that starts inside and slowly works its way out is now my preferred explanation of the name.

The name also plays well with the porcelain & plumbing metaphores of git.

Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell

#132

Post by [deleted] »

thih9 wrote: post #128
wkjagt wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instead of the inside out Now the name makes even more sense. I first read it as sh/git, but reading it as something that starts inside and slowly works its way out is now my preferred explanation of the name.

This comment looks like an offtopic pun to me and feels distracting.

[deleted]

Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell

#134

Post by ivix »

peterwwillis wrote: post #98
angry_octet wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really disagree, a small amount of customisation of tools can reap significant productivity gains. I think your anecdote is really just an example of bad management, not bad tooling. Could easily be that some management doofus had prohibited git from being installed on the 'production' system.

I think the problem is the idea of 'tooling'. A table saw by itself is mostly useless. With a fence and a miter gauge, it becomes useful. With a push block, stop block, subfence, outfeed table, infeed table, featherboard, crosscut sled, tenon jig, and dado set, it is the single most useful tool in a woodshop. Keep in mind it is still one tool and all those accessories are not "tooling", they are accessories to a sing…

I think you're saying that "creating home made tooling is a waste of time, and you should just use professional tools"?

In which case I agree, for almost all cases. A carpenter trying to build their own saw or chisel would be laughed out of the workshop, and rightly so.

However, the mark of a master craftsman is one who can identify when custom tooling are necessary and knows something about how to build them.

Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell

#135

Post by ptx »

onion2k wrote: post #114
outworlder wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and you don't have to spend one hour learning how to push a button. A version control system is tackling a non-trivial problem. Go learn it properly, otherwise you'll be one of the 'users' that, at best, will be stumped on trivial issues, losing productivity and running to others for help. At worst, you'll be making bad decisions and dragging down your team. Would you also say that you don't need to learn anythi…

Go learn it properly, otherwise you'll be one of the 'users' that, at best, will be stumped on trivial issues, losing productivity and running to others for help. At worst, you'll be making bad decisions and dragging down your team. I have no problem with people on my team asking each other for help, and I definitely don't consider it bad for productivity when they do. If someone on my team suggested people asking th…

I think the point was "trivial issues". What if a Java programmer kept asking their teammates if the statement terminator in Java is colon or semicolon?

Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell

#136

Post by 101404 »

RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u wrote: post #104
ddevault wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll use git a hundred times a day, every day, for the rest of your career. It's easily worth the hour it'll take to learn it properly.

I'm not certain that git will be the dominant VCS forever, as I'd used CVS, Perforce, Subversion, Mercurial, in various degrees when they were dominant (or at least relevant). Who knows, maybe Linus will have another epiphany, while Microsoft somehow mismanages GitHub and squanders all the goodwill away. Then, a group of upstarts... That said, wanting to learn git's internals for the sake of knowledge is fine as moti…

Then there's Gitlab and a few others.

Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell

#137

Post by Const-me »

viraptor wrote: post #100
kick wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Delivery being costly is a myth propagated by Big Cloud®. Any dollar store VPS that isn't DO will have more than enough for streaming video all day every day. That's irrelevant, though, given the person's question was about storage and archival.

It all depends on the use-case/context. Hosting a single video with few concurrent views is cheaper to do on VPS. Hosting videos with short response time in any region, with high resiliency, etc. is likely cheaper to do on CDNs. It's not a myth. It's "general advice may not work for you".

> Hosting videos with short response time in any region

Clouds are indeed selling that, but I think that's false advertisement. At least from here (western Balkans) it looks this way.

Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell

#138

Post by GordonS »

efreak wrote: post #97
peterwwillis wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still more sane than JavaScript to me. Would use this over a 500MB Node.js implementation.

Is this a reference to something? I can't imagine it would take 500mb to reimplement git in JavaScript. This one's https://github.com/maryrosecook/gitlet

It's a dig at the typical size of a `node_modules` folder. These often are very large, and often do contain several thousand files, largely due to transitive dependencies.

Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell

#140

Post by TeMPOraL »

blub wrote: post #127
ddevault wrote: post #22

Hiya HN. I was ranting on Mastodon earlier today because I feel like people learn git the wrong way - from the outside in, instead of the inside out. I reasoned that git internals are pretty simple and easy to understand, and that the supposedly obtuse interface makes a lot more sense when you approach it with an understanding of the fundamentals in hand. I said that the internals were so simple that you could implem…

If it's so hard to learn about this tool and so easy to learn about it the wrong way, that's a pretty obvious hint that there's something wrong with the tool. Having to learn about the internals is a giveaway that the tool suffers from poor encapsulation. To me git is definitely one of those tools where one should satisfice and not learn it deeply, because it's not worth the effort. One can successfully stick to a si…

> If it's so hard to learn about this tool and so easy to learn about it the wrong way, that's a pretty obvious hint that there's something wrong with the tool.

Not necessarily. This may mean (and I think in this case, it does) that people are too afraid to learn about those "internals" - or should I say, the mental model behind the tool (and then some of those people write tutorials for others, perpetuating the problem). And with a "monkey see, monkey do" approach, people can fail at anything, up to and including tying their own shoelaces.

There is no such thing as a perfect encapsulation. Not in programming, and especially not in the physical world. "Internals" are ever-present and leak into view all the time. A good abstraction is just one that you can use day-to-day without constantly minding what's going on behind the scenes.

More importantly though, when you're just learning a bunch of git commands in isolation ("monkey see, monkey do"), you're not learning a tool/an abstraction - you're just learning its interface. That's sometimes OK, but in general, for effective use of an abstraction it's better to learn what moving pieces it is abstracting away. Which in case of Git is that it's a DAG. DAGs are kind of fundamental in programming, too; it's good to understand them.

Post reply on HN