| ▲ | nomel 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think jj will never gain momentum because people only have a git mental model at this point, so won't be able to effectively reason about jj. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | incognito124 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I spoke about this before, but jj has the Blub Paradox problem, from the pg's essay Beating the Averages (https://paulgraham.com/avg.html). Yes, you can do most commit manipulations with git just like with jj. But, users of jj know they're "looking down the power continuum" (to reuse pg's terminology) when they look at git, whereas git users cannot fathom what's exactly the deal with jj. Unfortunately, the only way to get it is to spend a week with it, with an open mind. It's close to impossible to describe it except "it's really neat" and "wow it removes all git's friction I didn't know existed". And, apparently, there's a pattern of having to try at least two times before it becomes intuitive! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [deleted] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||