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

Git is too hard

changelog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 821 posts

Re: Git is too hard

#681

Post by dang »

rusk wrote: post #193
oblio wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With that attitude, I definitely wouldn't want to work with you either. I also love the assumptions about me and the thinly veiled ad-hominem :-) We should be able to admit that a tool has a crap UI and cut out the macho geek attitude. I've been working in this field for about of 15 years and the amount of needless pain we endure from core tools is unimaginable. I'm waaaay past the learning curve for Unix tools, git,…

I'm really not sure what to say to this. I'm guessing you're not an engineer. It's only product management types that cast around technical criticisms without proposing any solutions so I guess you are of that strain. I don't believe you're stupid, far from it but I think your perspective needs some correction. We've been using VCS fairly universally for the last 25-30 or so. There's been RCS, CVS, SVN, Perforce, Cle…

Flaming other users like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25121823 will get you banned on HN. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules on HN? We've had to ask you this kind of thing more than once before. I don't want to ban you because you also post good things, but at some point protecting the ecosystem is more important.

Re: Git is too hard

#682

Post by rusk »

rakoo wrote: post #612
rusk wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a system that knows it's connected to other people, where changes are instantly propagated and easily visible We have this already. It's called collaborative desktops over VNC ... > the differentiator between "branches" is not "what computer does it reside on" but "who did it" So you're into collaboration, but not on branches? I would have said branches related to specific units of functionality, streams of develop…

I don't understand the negativity. I'm not saying that git is bad, or that git sucks. It is what it is, and not wat most of the people really want. > We have this already. It's called collaborative desktops over VNC ... We still want a revision control system, things like commits and all. > So you're into collaboration, but not on branches? I would have said branches related to specific units of functionality, stream…

The negativity, I feel is on the part of this whole critique. A bunch of guys came up with a tool for themselves and it turned out to be so good that it not only took the software development world by storm, but it pretty much killed all competitors stone dead.

Now it seems as though you’ve got a few moaners who have basically decided that this amazing and free technology isn’t good enough and they can imagine what they want but wouldn’t even begin to know where to begin implementing it.

If you can’t use Git, it’s probably not for you. Other alternatives do exist but they will never match git for features or community activity.

Most of what these people want could be achieved as you suggest, with a simple NFS share and system of folder numbering. Once you go away from the domain of text based code Git becomes a bit pointless ...

Re: Git is too hard

#683

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

weehoo wrote: post #488
wpietri wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You might as well ask how to unsend an email. That is also a reasonable request. I'm unable to fathom the notion that if a computer doesn't work the way people want, the answer is for people to adapt to the computer. The whole point of computers is to do things for people. With physical messages, unsending has at least partial support. Before the mailman picks up from my porch, I can grab a sent message any time. I…

You can’t unsend an email because you can’t force someone else to delete something. Emails end up as files on someone else’s server. Claiming this is a UX issue is intentionally missing the point. If this is legitimately a foreign concept to you, an afternoon setting up postfix and playing around with it might be worth your time. Email is a protocol, not a program. A “delete” request would be just that, a request. Yo…

> Emails end up as files on someone else’s server.

When I use my Gmail account to send an email to another Gmail user, this is obviously not the case. Many adults in their twenties have never used a desktop email application - at my company the younger new hires need some time to figure out how to use Outlook, and they're engineers. They've grown up with the cloud as a given, local storage as the exception, and centralized messaging apps as the default method of communication.

I'm not going to argue about whether way of thinking about computing is any better or worse, but undeniably convenient, and it's definitely the direction we're headed.

Re: Git is too hard

#684

Post by bipson »

ghayes wrote: post #635
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cooks and knives are a bad example, because sharpening knives is easy. I am not a cook and sharpen mine too. It takes like 15 minutes to learn how to do it, and a similar time to actually do it. Most piano players don't have a clue about how to tune their pianos, though.

Oddly enough, pianists not knowing how to tune a piano is an anomaly in the music world, as most other artists know their instruments inside and out. The Times did a piece on this just the other day: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/arts/music/piano-tuning.h...

It is not binary in my experience.

Most professional musicians know their instrument very well - and still know a man for the "hard" stuff, e.g. for thorough maintenance or repairs that require craftsmanship.

And there are obviously variants. The guys that fix their instruments regularly and experiment with e.g. cooking your stings, and musicians that hand them in for the tiniest, easiest tasks.

Re: Git is too hard

#685

Post by rusk »

dang wrote: post #681
rusk wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not sure what to say to this. I'm guessing you're not an engineer. It's only product management types that cast around technical criticisms without proposing any solutions so I guess you are of that strain. I don't believe you're stupid, far from it but I think your perspective needs some correction. We've been using VCS fairly universally for the last 25-30 or so. There's been RCS, CVS, SVN, Perforce, Cle…

Flaming other users like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25121823 will get you banned on HN. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules on HN? We've had to ask you this kind of thing more than once before. I don't want to ban you because you also post good things, but at some point protecting the ecosystem is more important.

Sorry. Thanks.

Re: Git is too hard

#686

Post by [deleted] »

wpietri wrote: post #429
thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1. The very first question: >Oh, I just pushed a change. I really didn’t wanna push that, so how do I undo it? Is a Github problem, not a git problem. You might as well ask how to unsend an email. If you don't know what git push means, you shouldn't be using it and are playing with intellectual property fire. The conflation of Github with git is responsible for a lot of confusion. Having Github be your first interac…

> You might as well ask how to unsend an email. That is also a reasonable request. I'm unable to fathom the notion that if a computer doesn't work the way people want, the answer is for people to adapt to the computer. The whole point of computers is to do things for people. With physical messages, unsending has at least partial support. Before the mailman picks up from my porch, I can grab a sent message any time. I…

[deleted]

Re: Git is too hard

#688

Post by justnotworthit »

dimgl wrote: post #6

I don't agree at all. Git is the simplest version control system I've ever used. The concept of merging, rebasing, cherry-picking, and resetting works so naturally that I'm basically going to expect this level of ease of use from any VCS I use going forward. That being said, I know there are some who have trouble with Git. But IMO it isn't because Git is hard, but because they don't have to truly understand Git to us…

You've tried darcs? "patch theory", no branches, simple interface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcs#Model

http://darcs.net/QuickStart

http://darcs.net/

https://darcsbook.acmelabs.space/

Re: Git is too hard

#689

Post by RichardCA »

wpietri wrote: post #405
ivanhoe wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think memorizing commands is really the problem. Learning just 8 git commands (clone, pull, checkout, checkout -b, commit, push, merge, rebase) will cover like 99% of situations average dev will ever encounter. And when you need something more exotic you usually can google it, usually in under 5 mins. The problem, at least for me, was the complexity of the model which makes the whole thing super scary when yo…

I think more than one thing can be a problem. The CLI is confusing and the model is complicated. This means people can get themselves into weird, hard-to-debug situations. Or end up copy-pasting incantations in hopes of fixing problems, but instead might lose their work.

I've never seen a scenario that resulted in a developer losing work. You can always retrieve things out of the commit history, even in pathological situations.

Re: Git is too hard

#690

Post by dkdk8283 »

circularfoyers wrote: post #678
dkdk8283 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I first started writing software I would often rewrite third party libraries I didn’t understand to reduce complexity. After growing up and becoming wiser I came to understand I did this all because I didn’t invest the time to learn how these complex things worked. It also made me feel smart to write more code. Big mistake. I can’t help but think a little bit of this pattern rears it’s head as the motivation for…

I still agree with your sentiment but wouldn't have writing more code still made you a better programmer when you were presumably still learning?

Of course. You must be allowed to fail. Times have changed, and I can’t imagine what it’s like to be a new developer now. Perhaps the drive to be social and show off your work is the part I can’t understand.
Post reply on HN