Pijul 1.0 Beta

1

Gitless

<i>> > To differentiate from Git Pijul should focus on usability... If Pijul has an easy to use interface like Mercurial did then that will massively help adoption.</i> <i>> I don't think the goal or differentiation of pijul is to be popular via good UI, though. If the theory of patches is good, it doesn't matter if pijul "wins" or not, as long as whatever does can integrate it. If the theory of patches is bad, I don't want pijul "winning" just because it has a good UI.</i> Note that usability and UI aren't synonymous. A big part of usability is the mental model that users build up in their heads. With Git, the naive mental model doesn't match what Git is doing behind the scenes at all, which is a big reason Git's command line syntax is considered arcane. It is possible to stick a Git 'porcelain' on top that <i>does</i> match the naive user's mental model (eg. https://gitless.com/), but very few use them. If Pijul's Theory of Patches has superior usability, part of that superiority is likely to be how easily users can internalize a mental model of it's operation (learnability). The UI can help or hinder that process with various affordances or lack thereof. So, from your perspective, a 'good' UI would be one that reveals the Theory of Patches in a useful, learnable, usable way; and ought not be just some superficial gloss hiding away the internals from users. In that sense, surely 'winning' due to 'good UI' is a worthy goal to strive for?

#Git #Git Tools #Code Collaboration 13 social mentions

#Git #Code Collaboration #Git Tools 280 social mentions