Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> The porcelain, however, is incoherent and riddled with special cases.

Really? I'd ask you "Such as?" but I don't think any individual example is sufficient, since you say "riddled", so many examples would be required to illustrait your point. Individual commands may be conceptually overloaded, but overall I've found the interface to be quite consistent internally.

I've managed projects with both Mercurial and Git and have found that Git is consistently easy to use, where as Mercurial is very easy to use for the common case, and downright frustrating to use for advance cases.

The bottom line is that Git's UI assumes you know what you are doing. For the average corporate developer, that means that Mercurial is probably a better choice. Since Hg is optimized for the primary use cases. Git is about making simple things simple and complex things simple. Hg is about making simple things easy and complex things possible.




> The bottom line is that Git's UI assumes you know what you are doing.

I don't agree. Git's UI assumes you know the implementation details and storage model of git.

If you understand what the porcelain does in terms of plumbing, everything "makes sense" (for low values of "making" and "sense"), but in and of itself, without knowledge of the underlying implementation model, Git's porcelain makes absolutely no sense.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: