By and large, git is easy to use. Most people will do little beyond committing changes and very occasional branching and merging with the likelihood of not needing any of the tips in the site posted.
For these users, git is perfectly useable and easy to use.
That's actually a rather good comparison. Both have learning cliffs of doom[1]but once you've spent a few months with them they're arguably more powerful than the other options. They're usually fast to use but very hard to learn. I wouldn't say either one is easy though.
First of all, using git is not really a choice in many companies (except "choose to use git or choose to find another job"). Because, despite being a terrible tool, "git won". So people like me choose to put the minimum of time in getting familiar with a tool that even some git experts/devs admit is confusing to use (after having used it and being intimately familiar with it for years! or maybe you think they were unwilling to spend enough time learning).
More importantly, git (or any DVCS) is NOT work. Lots of technical people seem to have forgotten what purpose versioning control serves (saving your progress as you go) and instead seem to relish in solving git problems that make them feel they're working but add in fact no value whatsoever. That is the core issue. Takes about 10 minutes to get familiar with hg (and then just use a GUI), whereas you have to spend days/weeks reading git docs in order to internalize how it actually works. For what? Just to save some files on a server. I'm sorry, but no.
By and large, git is easy to use. Most people will do little beyond committing changes and very occasional branching and merging with the likelihood of not needing any of the tips in the site posted.
For these users, git is perfectly useable and easy to use.
Name me any software that doesn't need a guide like this.
like, how do you even exit vim? You need a guide for that. Or to get it closer to git / this guide, how do you undo / redo?
You're comparing git to vim in terms of ease of use...
That's actually a rather good comparison. Both have learning cliffs of doom[1]but once you've spent a few months with them they're arguably more powerful than the other options. They're usually fast to use but very hard to learn. I wouldn't say either one is easy though.
[1] https://dementiagaming.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/learning_...
1 reply →
Well, I think it tells how much time some developers are willing to spend learning the tools they are using.
First of all, using git is not really a choice in many companies (except "choose to use git or choose to find another job"). Because, despite being a terrible tool, "git won". So people like me choose to put the minimum of time in getting familiar with a tool that even some git experts/devs admit is confusing to use (after having used it and being intimately familiar with it for years! or maybe you think they were unwilling to spend enough time learning). More importantly, git (or any DVCS) is NOT work. Lots of technical people seem to have forgotten what purpose versioning control serves (saving your progress as you go) and instead seem to relish in solving git problems that make them feel they're working but add in fact no value whatsoever. That is the core issue. Takes about 10 minutes to get familiar with hg (and then just use a GUI), whereas you have to spend days/weeks reading git docs in order to internalize how it actually works. For what? Just to save some files on a server. I'm sorry, but no.
Truly right