On 16 Jul 2009, at 06:20, Dan Pascu wrote:
Actually one can look at this the other way around. Every time I
have to work with svn, hg, git, it strikes me how difficult is to
use them compared to darcs. They do things in twisted ways, or have
unnatural names for their commands (mostly because they just copied
them from previous systems). Following your argument I'd say there
is a strong case for a language reform in git, hg, svn, ... :P
It would alienate me to see that a very simple and intuitive command
set is butchered down and morphed into something else just to make
it easier for git users not to be surprised. If anyone hopes that
this would attract more git/hg/svn/whatever users to darcs, she's
overly optimistic. None will leave their favorite VCS to move to a
little known system that has a similar command set. Honestly how
many git users switching to mercurial or the other way around do
anyone here know about?
That's not to say I'm against improving the command names. But what
I consider improvement in their case is making them better express
what they do so they're intuitive to use. I do not consider an
improvement mimicking other VCS' commands just because they're more
popular.
I'm sold. darcs should use the terms that make sense, not the terms
that other (possibly very different) more popular systems use.
Some things I think darcs has got right: record/push is one. Some
things I'm not sure about: changes is one, for me at least. Some
things I'm pretty sure could be improved: revert and rollback come to
mind.
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
http://aviewfromafar.net/
http://twitter.com/ashleymoran
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
