[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mercurial vs. git
From: |
olafBuddenhagen |
Subject: |
Re: Mercurial vs. git |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:21:30 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:38:57PM +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Give Photoshop to a newbie, and you'll see him/her working at once.
That's not what I heard.
> I think the reason why there are most times pro-apps and simple
> programs is, that their developers don't think usability far enough.
Ah, there's the KDE person speaking... :-P
"More options can't hurt." Oh yes they can. Get over it.
Of course a well-designed full featured program can actually be easier
to use than a badly done simple one. But given the same amount of care,
the more featureful one will *always* be more complex. There is *always*
a tradeoff between simplicity and functionality.
And I for my part am not willing to compromise on Git's functionality.
-antrik-
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/03
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/04
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/08
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/09
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Michal Suchanek, 2009/11/09
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/10
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Michal Suchanek, 2009/11/11
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/11
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Michael Banck, 2009/11/11
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/12
- Re: Mercurial vs. git,
olafBuddenhagen <=