| hm. vexing. I feel like this is mostly accurate, to my knowledge, but reading this: > I do not claim that this way of looking at Git represents absolute “facts” in any hard and fast or literal sense. But I contend that if you conceive of Git in the way that I’m going to suggest, if you substitute these conceptions of Git for any misconceptions you might have now, you’ll be a much happier and more fluid Git user. …vexes me. “Think of git like bowl of peanuts and marshmallows” and other pointless, wrong, metaphors about how git works are a dime a dozen. Yet, here is someone who is clearly quite familiar with git, and they go to pains to point out they are simplifying and may not be correct in their explanations. Its good to be humble, but ffs, git is too frigging complicated if the best you can get is a “probably wrong simplified mental model of how it works so you can be a bit more productive with it”. I dont care; - a simple meaningless metaphor that lets you be more productive? OK. - a accurate description of how things actually work? OK. …but pick one. What I do not want is a possibly wrong complicated explanation of how git maybe works. |
I would argue most things in technology are complex, and mental models are intentional ways to take something complex and turn it into something more simple. This article does not create meaningless metaphors.