Re:GUM: A better CLI for Git
by jmccaffrey on Monday January 30, 2012 @02:27PM
(#3530221)
I'm not sure I agree that it's necessarily bad if the interface is a side-effect of the implementation. It seems very worse-is-better to me.
I feel like when the interface is a side-effect of implementation, you get a more gradual sliding scale from user to developer (like being able to experiment with web apis by curling at them).
In git's case, I appreciate that I can trawl around through my .git directory and not get lost because it pretty closely matches the interface.
Re:GUM: A better CLI for Git
by hp on Monday January 30, 2012 @05:41PM
(#3530936)
That said, I'm not sure UI matching the implementation is the problem with git's UI; it's more that git's UI is inconsistent, has poorly-chosen names for commands/options, and has bad default behaviors.
I feel like when the interface is a side-effect of implementation, you get a more gradual sliding scale from user to developer (like being able to experiment with web apis by curling at them).
In git's case, I appreciate that I can trawl around through my .git directory and not get lost because it pretty closely matches the interface.