Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@irene Too vapory? Must be, coz I use this fucked up tool of natural language (not because I wasn't able to clarify my thoughts of course)
-
Computers will never be able to actually understand. Won't go down into the rabbit hole why, but at least for now, it's a fact.
The next best thing that you can do is designing a clear workflow so that there's ony way to do a task, and it must be simple. Not like throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the UI like in Git.
Impossible? BULLSHIT. Cars are way more complicated because there's moving parts, controlled explosions and chemicals involved, and yet you just turn they key, and off you go.
The first cars took half an hour just for starting with lots of manual settings, levers and shit, pretty much the way especially Linux folks think it should be done. -
@Fast-Nop yes, agree. Should have given it more thought. Those machines are designed for us. It shouldn't be so cumbersome to use them.
(Actually I hate all OS I know of. Maybe have to find the better reasons still. - Currently my hate for git also intensifies. Feels a bit heretic. Yeah I know, it's fast, branches are cheap, it's distributed... But why for example is it impossible to put a commit unto two similar branches such that git still recognizes in the diff of the branches that these commit were actually the same? - And the command line interface, phew...) -
@phorkyas git actually does recognize that, it still has to update the graph though, which is why you need to commit again.
Edit:
I think you're looking for git diff branch1...branch2
Notice the three dots -
@beegC0de ah, could I'm confusing things again and this is actually a bitbucket bug! Thanks for pointing out.
From a little bit heated discussion I want to extract this: One big pain in the ass is the human to computer interface. Maybe it's the natural vs. formal language divide, but there's a mismatch deeper than between object and relational models that no ORM can failingly fix.
The whole point of the discussion was on such a point where some wanted an interface more human friendly and I stubbornly insisted on the way it is simple for the computer system. Like not too much human messiness should invade machine. One argument sounded as if human words were like unicode code points which meaning doesn't depend on its representation.
That's raising red flags to me: Nonono, natural language is too messy, keep it out. This poor machine could have been so clean and well designed and we already stacked up so much entropy we still dare to call OS,..
Dunno, what's your stance? Still hoping that your shell one day will be able to process our poor standard English? Or do you think, like me, all those failed attempts show there's a gap you should not even touch?
question
human machine interface
clean machine