Honestly this article seems like a really good ad for not trying/using jj.
I cannot believe how ironically confusing it sounds to use, given that they claim it is "designed from the ground up to be easy to use".
jbranchaud•2mo ago
I don't remember my first steps with subversion, mercurial, or git too well, but I don't think any of them were any more intuitive. My understanding is that jj is supposed to be easier to use for day-to-day version control. I'm very comfortable with git, but that was hard earned and I don't see that level of confidence with most devs that I've worked with over the years. Hoping jj can be more accessible to the average working software engineer than git has been.
stephenr•2mo ago
Yeah being new to a tool it's expected that you'll have a learning curve.
But some stuff is just ridiculous.
Ok you use the mercurial model and have bookmarks not branches... oh wait you also didn't create a default bookmark when you initialised the repo.
Ok you also have the mercurial model where there is no staging of files... but now you've added in a whole new command to solve the problem that mercurial solves by just letting you name files on the command line.
Everything about it just feels like it's being different from something for the sake of being different, not for any actual benefit.
stephenr•2mo ago
I cannot believe how ironically confusing it sounds to use, given that they claim it is "designed from the ground up to be easy to use".
jbranchaud•2mo ago
stephenr•2mo ago
But some stuff is just ridiculous.
Ok you use the mercurial model and have bookmarks not branches... oh wait you also didn't create a default bookmark when you initialised the repo.
Ok you also have the mercurial model where there is no staging of files... but now you've added in a whole new command to solve the problem that mercurial solves by just letting you name files on the command line.
Everything about it just feels like it's being different from something for the sake of being different, not for any actual benefit.