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.
The name also plays well with the porcelain & plumbing metaphores of git.
Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell
141–150 of 235 posts
Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but I also use a mouse. I could learn how the optical mouse works. I have some guesses about it too, but never actually learned the details. But I'm a user of it - it works even if I don't understand exactly how and nobody tells me that I learned using the mouse "the wrong way" because of it.
A typical mouse has 2-3 buttons, a wheel, and an X/Y axis. Git is 100x more complex, if not more. Give me a break. I'm sick of people glamorizing the idea that you should have your hand held through each step of every tool you use and never expend any effort on becoming an expert in the tools of your trade. Git is an engineering tool, designed by and for professionals. Imagine this kind of obscene complatency in othe…
Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell
#1431. Cache invalidation. 2. Naming things 3. Off by one errors.
This person has #2 nailed down, hard.
Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell
#144What's wrong with people nowadays? Couldn't they come with a better name ?
They're much less concerned about their language now.
I don't mean to overstate the case - it's not a swearword or the sort of thing you'd really censor, just a playground term for a mean person. All the same it's an ugly word and (however irrationally) this is one of the reasons I prefer Mercurial to this day.
Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell
#145Hiya 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…
Not to vouch for having Git store things in human format. But I often think about how inefficient JSON API's and YAML storage formats are (in parse time) just to be a benefit of a user debugging it or discovering the API through a browser. But since most people use a JSON prettifier plugin or a tool like Postman anyways, what is the benefit of the line format being character strings? Wouldn't a binary package not be just as easy translatable into human readable JSON formatted output as a compacted JSON string is?
Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell
#146Earlier 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…
Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
A typical mouse has 2-3 buttons, a wheel, and an X/Y axis. Git is 100x more complex, if not more. Give me a break. I'm sick of people glamorizing the idea that you should have your hand held through each step of every tool you use and never expend any effort on becoming an expert in the tools of your trade. Git is an engineering tool, designed by and for professionals. Imagine this kind of obscene complatency in othe…
You understand git. If someone said you need to know how sed works, or grep, or babel, or clang, or bash, or perl, or literally any other tool that you use regularly that you don't know the internals of then you'd quite reaaonably say they were wrong because you're an expert what matters to you and you can do your job without knowing how something else works. Perhaps you should try to respect that other people choose…
Re: Shit – An implementation of Git using POSIX shell
#148Hiya 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…
eh, common.sh is a lot more complicated than it could be. example: write_hex() { hex="$1" echo "$hex" | sed -e 's/../&\n/' | while read -r hexbyte; do printf "\\x$hexbyte" done } you can imagine other shenanigans with xargs or something, but I think this strikes the best balance between performance and readability (as far as shell script goes). read_int16 and read_int32 don't work on big-endian systems, or if int is…