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

Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

eagain.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 110 posts

Re: Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

#11

Post by guhidalg »

jjice wrote: post #9

Definitely helped a bit. I just graduated from university and am working full time as a developer now. I thought I knew how to use git because I knew how to do feature branching and merging. Boy was I wrong. Within a few weeks at my new job, I've realized that I'm missing so much useful git knowledge. When I learned about cherry-pick, my mind was blown. My goal right now is to develop a better mental model of git tha…

https://learngitbranching.js.org/

Go through every lesson, understand it, and find yourself more knowledgeable about git usage than 95% of developers.

Re: Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

#13

Post by jlokier »

jjice wrote: post #9

Definitely helped a bit. I just graduated from university and am working full time as a developer now. I thought I knew how to use git because I knew how to do feature branching and merging. Boy was I wrong. Within a few weeks at my new job, I've realized that I'm missing so much useful git knowledge. When I learned about cherry-pick, my mind was blown. My goal right now is to develop a better mental model of git tha…

This was the best resource for me:

http://ftp.newartisans.com/pub/git.from.bottom.up.pdf

Re: Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

#14

Post by Sr_developer »

For me almost every Git teaching resource has gone like this:

Step 1.It is explained that Git is a simple program, and that the underlined idea can be understood easily, it is only that other materials have done a bad job about it.

Step 2. Tell the reader a blob is just the byte object containing the information you are source-controlling. "See how easy it is?"

Step 3. Invent their own nomenclature/diagrams/metaphors for all the other concepts, totally muddling the waters.

Step 4. Become one of the resources criticized on Step 1.

Re: Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

#15

Post by z77dj3kl »

mhh__ wrote: post #5
throw0101a wrote: post #2

I ran across this little gem recently: > Git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space. * Isaac Wolkerstorfer, https://twitter.com/agnoster/status/44636629423497217

Is that maths soup or a real construct? I can't join the dots but I'm also studying physics so category theory is still slightly Greek to me (I can feel the mathematicians' noses rising already...)

It's random math words put together and doesn't make sense even in isolation.

Re: Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

#16

Post by SmellTheGlove »

throw0101a wrote: post #2

I ran across this little gem recently: > Git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space. * Isaac Wolkerstorfer, https://twitter.com/agnoster/status/44636629423497217

Is this a joke or serious? I don’t understand enough of the words after “branches” to know. I’m serious btw.

Re: Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

#17

Post by JJMcJ »

z77dj3kl wrote: post #15
mhh__ wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that maths soup or a real construct? I can't join the dots but I'm also studying physics so category theory is still slightly Greek to me (I can feel the mathematicians' noses rising already...)

It's random math words put together and doesn't make sense even in isolation.

Or else it's research that won a Fields Medal. There is no middle ground.

Re: Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

#18

Post by JJMcJ »

beermonster wrote: post #3
throw0101a wrote: post #2

I ran across this little gem recently: > Git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space. * Isaac Wolkerstorfer, https://twitter.com/agnoster/status/44636629423497217

See also this https://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/

Reads like the man page for "git rebase".

Re: Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

#19

Post by stu2b50 »

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #16
throw0101a wrote: post #2

I ran across this little gem recently: > Git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space. * Isaac Wolkerstorfer, https://twitter.com/agnoster/status/44636629423497217

Is this a joke or serious? I don’t understand enough of the words after “branches” to know. I’m serious btw.

It's a parody/derivation from the monad joke, where one explanation for a monad is that they're "just an monoid in the category of endofunctors".

Re: Git for Computer Scientists (2010)

#20

Post by umvi »

I just think of git as a graph and branches/tags as text pointers to nodes in the graph. Doesn't seem that complex to me...

Maybe I "got gud" though and can no longer empathize with git beginners

Post reply on HN