Whilst there are many development topics in which a WYSIWYG or GUI are monuments to "3i" -- ignorance, incompetence, and ineptitude -- Git isn't one of them.
As an example of when the "easier" tools create more problems than they solve, take HTML/CSS... WYSIWYG tools take a whiz on semantics from so on-high you'd think the almighty just got back from a kegger, fail to maintain separation of presentation from content, typically use JavaScript to do things that don't require JS in the first place, and on the whole result in train wreck disasters barely qualified to be called websites. A LOT of the "shortcuts" people try to take with it -- frameworks like bootcrap for example -- only make people work harder, not smarter, and as such should be avoided by any competent developer. The result is a walking talking WCAG violation and just BEGGING for someone to haul you into court under laws like the US ADA or UK EQA.
That's not opinion or being elitist, that's FACT! These are legitimate concerns that make the visual tools and things like front-end frameworks utter and complete trash; those who promote their use for business being little more than frauds.
But I fail to see what shortcomings or massive problems in the RESULT there are for what version control software does. That's the point at which it crosses the line from good practices and professionalism, and into an L33t "let's make this as hard as possible to keep out the normies" attitude.
... and attitude painfully common amongst the "command line or die" types. Right tool for the right job. If I'm building something with FPC, or GCC, or NASM, I'm using the command line because it best fits the task. That doesn't mean I'm not using a GUI editor since they blow command line ones out of the water. So far as I'm concerned vi/vim/emacs/etc can go suck an egg.
I can understand why many programs -- git included -- might send people running for a GUI based tool. The command line for it is painfully cryptic, like most *nix fanboy projects poorly documented, and painfully obtuse. I know if I used it on a regular basis -- I'll leave my low opinion of why it exists out of this reply I'd probably use a GUI.
Unlike many I'm not afraid of the command line -- I've been doing this stuff for over 40 years -- but there are a LOT of CLI programs where I can't help but scream at the display "Lands sake, if I wanted to waste time screwing around with cryptic esoteric poorly documented commands, I'd drag out the Trash-80 Model 12 and boot up Xenix!"
In that way, SO many CLI interfaces feel like bad parodies of the worst of 1970's *nix thinking.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Whilst there are many development topics in which a WYSIWYG or GUI are monuments to "3i" -- ignorance, incompetence, and ineptitude -- Git isn't one of them.
As an example of when the "easier" tools create more problems than they solve, take HTML/CSS... WYSIWYG tools take a whiz on semantics from so on-high you'd think the almighty just got back from a kegger, fail to maintain separation of presentation from content, typically use JavaScript to do things that don't require JS in the first place, and on the whole result in train wreck disasters barely qualified to be called websites. A LOT of the "shortcuts" people try to take with it -- frameworks like bootcrap for example -- only make people work harder, not smarter, and as such should be avoided by any competent developer. The result is a walking talking WCAG violation and just BEGGING for someone to haul you into court under laws like the US ADA or UK EQA.
That's not opinion or being elitist, that's FACT! These are legitimate concerns that make the visual tools and things like front-end frameworks utter and complete trash; those who promote their use for business being little more than frauds.
But I fail to see what shortcomings or massive problems in the RESULT there are for what version control software does. That's the point at which it crosses the line from good practices and professionalism, and into an L33t "let's make this as hard as possible to keep out the normies" attitude.
... and attitude painfully common amongst the "command line or die" types. Right tool for the right job. If I'm building something with FPC, or GCC, or NASM, I'm using the command line because it best fits the task. That doesn't mean I'm not using a GUI editor since they blow command line ones out of the water. So far as I'm concerned vi/vim/emacs/etc can go suck an egg.
I can understand why many programs -- git included -- might send people running for a GUI based tool. The command line for it is painfully cryptic, like most *nix fanboy projects poorly documented, and painfully obtuse. I know if I used it on a regular basis -- I'll leave my low opinion of why it exists out of this reply I'd probably use a GUI.
Unlike many I'm not afraid of the command line -- I've been doing this stuff for over 40 years -- but there are a LOT of CLI programs where I can't help but scream at the display "Lands sake, if I wanted to waste time screwing around with cryptic esoteric poorly documented commands, I'd drag out the Trash-80 Model 12 and boot up Xenix!"
In that way, SO many CLI interfaces feel like bad parodies of the worst of 1970's *nix thinking.