Live data from Hacker News

Github turns five

github.com

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: Github turns five

#101

Github is probably one of the biggest innovations in web since Google. Sourceforge was okay, but it felt clunky and inaccessible, not to mention it lacked really any kind of social aspect. Github brought source control to the mainstream and made open source cool again and made it felt like an actual social thing as opposed to single developers making commits without context to a repository. If it weren't for Github I…

I'd say since Stack Overflow, in terms of how it made life better for developers.

Re: Github turns five

#102
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrapping your head around git takes a long time regardless of your background, because git's interface is incoherent and requires you to understand internal details of its implementation to a degree I haven't seen in a commonly used dev tool since the '80s.

I don't think this is really true. Sure, you have to learn the ( absurdly simple) model that git uses behind the scenes, but after you do that, who really cares about the standard CLI interface? That interface sucks in the same way a dashboard might suck on an all-terrian vehicle. Sure it looks like shit, all the knobs are in the wrong place and don't turn in consistent ways, and that analog clock seems really out of…

I agree with you, basically, but that is the substance of my complaint. Git leaves all of its messy internal bits exposed and does not provide a clean abstraction layer in its interface. Many people have written such abstraction layers, but they tend to be incomplete, and none of them is a standard. Everyone who wants to use git - which includes everyone who wants to merely collaborate with other people who use git - therefore has to learn git's internal implementation details.

It's one thing to learn the internal implementation details when you are a power user who really cares about a particular tool and wants to master it: it's another thing to require everyone to gain low-level familiarity.

The whole point of a computer - indeed, the whole point of computing, if you look at it through a lambda-calculus lens - is to provide abstractions over lower-level details, thereby allowing human brains to spend less time worrying about those details and more time manipulating higher-level abstract concepts.

In failing to offer a high-level interface, git wastes human brainpower which could otherwise be spent solving actual problems.

You don't need to know what an AST or a symbol table or an intermediate representation are to use gcc; you don't need to understand static single-assignment form, linker relocation entries, or ELF segments. You can use the tool without any knowledge of its internal mechanisms. This is not true of Git, and that is why I hope it can be improved or replaced with something that has more respect for human brain power.

Re: Github turns five

#103
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you want about GitHub, Git is awesome. (Not sure why we're comparing them but I'll throw in my opposing opinion. I actually like both but Git itself is much more important to me than GitHub.)

Honest question: If it's not for GitHub's community features that get enabled through git's decentralized repository, what does git do for you more than a local SVN server?

I prefer git because it stays out of your way. No more .svn garbage littering every folder. No more "mother may I?" before deleting or moving files. And no more URLs when branching and merging.

Re: Github turns five

#104
post #89

What I really love about GitHub is that it's one of the really exciting companies that has never really disappointed nor sold out like Twitter did. I'm as excited about GitHub as ever.

> What I really love about GitHub is that it's one of the really exciting companies that has never really disappointed nor sold out like Twitter did. To be completely fair to Twitter, it's been less than a year since Github raised their first round of funding ($100MM). Twitter has raised $1.6 billion over the last seven years. It's a lot easier not to sell out when your investors aren't pressuring you to pull a profi…

That just means that GitHub were much quicker to find a profitable business model than Twitter, though. :)

Re: Github turns five

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean in terms of numbers. Of course more people use Google, but lets not underestimate the impact Github has had and will continue to have. If you're a developer, Github has essentially become a requirement to have, it's a developers resume. If it weren't for Github the numerous open source contributions I've made as well as projects I've open sourced myself wouldn't have come to fruition, and while my contr…

> it's a developers resume I keep hearing this on places like HN, yet when I've been applying to software jobs in the real world lately, there's been barely a mention of it.

That's because most big, established corporations aren't using it.

Re: Github turns five

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a developers resume I keep hearing this on places like HN, yet when I've been applying to software jobs in the real world lately, there's been barely a mention of it.

Perhaps only part of the resume. As a programmer, seeing real code, quality of commits, and working example projects made a big impression on me when recruiting intern-level developers. Also can see engagement with OSS, if applicable. Would be curious what sort of companies (size, location, focus, developer-to-other ratio) you're applying to and who they're seeking. Thanks!

A few months back, I was applying for developer positions in northern California. Most of my professional experience is in .net, but I applied for all kinds of work, including a rails position. I'm not sure what the average dev/total ratio was for all those, but it's roughly 1/3 where I ended up, with a total size of less than 50. Github was never mentioned during any of my interviews, except occasionally by me to say that I have an account. (though I haven't done much with it) No one seemed particularly interested.

Re: Github turns five

#109
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git is like linux in... 1996 maybe. The underlying technology is pretty awesome, but it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of usability. Git is enormously powerful, but it has some key weak spots that can lead to intense frustration, and it doesn't exactly guide users into using it in the best way possible.

Mercurial is like a git designed for humans. Basically the same design (distributed, branching and merging is very easy) but with slightly higher-level command line options that removes some of the rough edges. I kind of wish it had won over git.

Mercurial is awesome. I never use GitHub, except when I want to download a zip of some code to review. Mercurial I use on any project not in TFS.

I've tried to revisit GitHub many times, but I just don't get it - it's not as good as Mercurial or TFS, and I have no desire to 'follow' anyone or watch a project. I'm just too damn busy building apps and projects to pay any attention to anything I'm not actively working on.

I'm still waiting for the 'ah ha' moment on why so many people are talking up GitHub, but it hasn't happened yet.

Re: Github turns five

#110
post #43

I LOVE github, their little project forever changed the way I think about & write software, and their ideas (blogposts/presentations) about how to build software are truly a massive inspiration for me. PS: Would be awesome to see who has the oldest github account on here. I joined April 20 2008.

January 11, 2008. User id 4[1] :D [1]: https://api.github.com/users/wycats

I joined on 2008-10-06 and by then it was already id 27786.

https://api.github.com/users/steveklabnik

Post reply on HN