[darcs-users] Re: should 'changes' be renamed 'log'? (was: Re: SchwernLikesDarcs SchwernHatesDarcs)
mark at summersault.com
Sun Mar 20 14:47:26 UTC 2005
On 2005-03-20, Gerhard Siegesmund <jerri at jerri.de> wrote:
> Command aliases are the path to the dark side. Take a look at tla
> (arch) and you will shortly see the problem. In my opinion calling the
> same function with different names makes the interaction between the
> people of a community very hard. You have to learn both command sets to
> really give an answer, if a problem arises.
This I think the is the most important reason to avoid aliases.
If I an have an sample script or documentation that uses CVS-style
command names, it's going to less comprehensible to someone who is most
familiar with the "native" command names. So all the people involved in
communicating syntax need to be aware of all the alias variations, and
choose the most appropriate one (or perhaps multiple ones!) to use any
situation. The usage for individual might improve, but group
communication becomes less clear.
I assume that darcs benefits by having more users, because some users
will turn into contributors. But how often are having familiar command
names part of the "tipping point"-- the decision to stay with darcs or
move on? Several users coming over from Arch have expressed appreciation
for the small command set and the lack of so many aliases.
After using both CVS and Arch, I /expected/ there would be some time
investment to learn an alternative. Darcs was refreshing in how easy it
was to get going with.
OS X doesn't have icons on the desktop for "Explorer" that lead to
Safari or "Finder" and I'm not sure we need such aliases either.
More information about the darcs-users