[alwillis]

> At this point perhaps a million person-years have been sacrificed to the semantically incoherent shit UX of git. I have loathed git from the beginning but there's effectively no other choice.

Yes! We mostly wouldn’t tolerate the complexity and the terrible UX of a tool we use everyday--but there's enough Stockholm Syndrome out there where most of us are willing to tolerate it.

[TeMPOraL]

Unless you're aware that such powerful commands are something you need once in a blue moon, and then you're grateful that the tool is flexible enough to allow them in the first place.

Git may be sharp and unwieldy, but it's also one of the decreasing amount of tools we still use - the trend of turning tools into toys consumed the regular user market and is eating into tech software as well.

[crispyambulance]

Tools, done right, are a joy to use and allow you to be expressive and precise while also saving you labor. Good tools promote mastery and creative inquiry.

Git is NOT that.

Git is something you use to get stuff done, until it becomes an irritating obstacle course of incidental complexity.

[irishcoffee]

Hg is a joy to use compared to git. Sure wish hg had won.

[alwillis]

> Sure wish hg had won.

To me, it's more like GitHub won; Git came along for the ride.

Back in the day when companies evaluated Git and Mercurial (Facebook, Google, Microsoft), they decided Mercurial was better. Mozilla used Mercurial for a long time until switching to Git fairly recently.

But once GitHub took off and became the center of gravity for developers, it became the de facto standard.

It also explains why there have been several attempts (Sapling, JJ) to use Mercurial's semantics as a front-end for Git.

[skydhash]

Why should there be tolerance? You look it up once, then write a script or an alias if it's part of your workflow. Or made a note if it's worth that. I use magit and I get quick action and contextual help at every step of my interaction with git.