Someone is whining about how hard Git is in an article they wrote. They work for GitHub. The article was posted to HN.

Yes, let's make things so easy a literal baby can do it.

  • 5
    I got no problem with that proposal.
  • 1
    Git is literally just a few lines long. All of the features are only shortcuts for the core.

    It can’t get any simpler than that..
  • 8
    All other considerations aside, why is making things easy a bad thing?
  • 2
    @RememberMe Especially things that ought to have been easy in the first place, like version control.
  • 6
    @RememberMe Git *is* easy. Making things easier isn't analogous to making them better.
  • 9
    "How to easily filter people you should never hire."
  • 6
    Making things easy isn't bad.

    Reducing engineering, specifically, to mindless repetition is the central thesis of Warhammer 40k.
  • 5
    Don’t make it too easy or we’ll have “senior engineers” that should have been fired as interns.
  • 1
    Will Ferrel called: He said you pussies need to Git Hard!

  • 1
    @Root If the relevant "senior" skill is just coping with SW that suffers from bad UI, that job position doesn't require a senior dev in the first place.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop I’m referring more to the dumbing down of tech in general (and really: everything else) rather than git specifically.

    Not just anyone can do something well, so if you make it so easy that anyone can attempt (and worse: with no quality control), things are going to end poorly.
  • 4
    @Root The point of "dumbing down" tech is to waste less time with the tech itself and have more time for actually doing something useful with it.

    That's pretty much the general point of a work-share society, and pretty much everyone gets this idea. A notable exception are IT folks - not when taking ready-made shit from society (like shoes, bread, or dentist treatments), but whenever they are supposed to deliver their share. Then they expect anyone to become IT proficient.
  • 1
    Would love to read that article. I find that there are several aspects of git that can be hard, depending on usage. I seldom find myself in really tricky situations, but when I do I realize that there are aspects of git that is tricky and that I haven't learned yet. Like different ways to calculate diffs, use the same merge-commit when doing a git-bisect and run some test command to see if that commit is ok.
    But hard to say when you don't link the article, what concept of git that I supposedly hard.
    Either way, I think git is hard, especially the soft parts of it and how we use it consistently in different teams.
  • 0
    Basic GIT workflows are pretty easy. The non-basic stuff is bound to require some knowledge of what you actually want to achieve.
    There is minor improvement potential in the CLI.
    But it already contains shortcuts like pull, rebase, stash wich abstract more or less long chains of the basic command (groups) like fetch, merge, branch, commit...
    GIT add -i definitely needs difftool support (current implementation lets you edit patches direcly, wich nobody really likes). But apart from that, whenever i searched for something GIT related, the stackoverflow answer was fully satisfying (wich isn't the common case, when it comes to IT questions).

    And GIT is really good at preventing users from shooting their feet. Even for the most obscure brain fart repo screw-ups (like rewriting history wrong or accidentally force-push-deleting the wrong branch), there is always a way to recover only one stackoverflow search away.
    Never used any piece of software as well thought through as GIT...
  • 2
    The ranter might work in big media, wich is known to never link sources because of fear to loose visitors to linked sites.

    Link to the article and its comments:
  • 0
    Lol I don't work in "big media". Just didn't see anything until now.
Add Comment