Why learn an archaic and honestly horrifying command line interface, possibly the worst CLI ever made in the history of computing…when nice normal graphical interfaces work better, have discoverability, have troubleshooting tools, and don’t require memorizing scripture?
There’s nothing ‘archaic’ about git’s CLI. I think you might just be opposed to CLI’s in general, which is fine for a regular computer user, but paints a grim picture of your competency if you’re a developer.
I find the built in controls with visual studio supremely convenient.
After using git init --bare for the remote repo I use the built in git controls for branching and switching out as well as syncing and pushing. Why not, the button is right there and it’s literally faster.
The difference is that PRESUMABLY you aren’t utterly dependent upon it. If vscode utterly fucks your repo with a shit command, you’ll not really have any trouble fixing it. That’s the huge difference. The point is not that all GUI controls are always bad all of the time, the point is that you need to know what the hell you are doing in git as a basic tenant of developer competency.
The fact that you don’t already know why and are dependent on GUI tools that you don’t fully understand is the reason that you’re probably not a very good developer.
Git is incredibly powerful. Knowing why and how is infinitely valuable. Nothing about git cli is archaic or even particularly difficult to understand. Also the man page is very excellent.
Your lack of rational thought backed up by facts rather than feelings is why you’re a bad developer.
See I can do it too.
But honestly even saying “nothing about the git cli is archaic” is…well, it’s either disqualifying or Stockholm syndrome, and Stockholm syndrome isn’t real.
Why learn an archaic and honestly horrifying command line interface, possibly the worst CLI ever made in the history of computing…when nice normal graphical interfaces work better, have discoverability, have troubleshooting tools, and don’t require memorizing scripture?
There’s nothing ‘archaic’ about git’s CLI. I think you might just be opposed to CLI’s in general, which is fine for a regular computer user, but paints a grim picture of your competency if you’re a developer.
That seems unnecessarily harsh.
I find the built in controls with visual studio supremely convenient.
After using git init --bare for the remote repo I use the built in git controls for branching and switching out as well as syncing and pushing. Why not, the button is right there and it’s literally faster.
The difference is that PRESUMABLY you aren’t utterly dependent upon it. If vscode utterly fucks your repo with a shit command, you’ll not really have any trouble fixing it. That’s the huge difference. The point is not that all GUI controls are always bad all of the time, the point is that you need to know what the hell you are doing in git as a basic tenant of developer competency.
Most cli stuff is a lot easier than programming. If you can’t use cli then by definition you’re a shit programmer.
Of course if you simply don’t want to use cli that’s a different matter.
Mate… Theres maybe like 5 “git + singleword” commands that cover 99.999% of all of your uses of git. Its really not hard.
The fact that you don’t already know why and are dependent on GUI tools that you don’t fully understand is the reason that you’re probably not a very good developer.
Git is incredibly powerful. Knowing why and how is infinitely valuable. Nothing about git cli is archaic or even particularly difficult to understand. Also the man page is very excellent.
Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Neat.
Your lack of rational thought backed up by facts rather than feelings is why you’re a bad developer.
See I can do it too.
But honestly even saying “nothing about the git cli is archaic” is…well, it’s either disqualifying or Stockholm syndrome, and Stockholm syndrome isn’t real.