You're right that git isn't an extension of anyone's body - but few engineering projects, where this quote is often applied, are.
But you're wrong to describe his prototype code as "hacky" - especially when I'm referring to the design - which really is pared down to the essentials. Even "streamlined" and "precisely suited to its purpose". It's also not "just starting out", in the sense that the design was informed by BitKeeper, just much simpler.
When you get your data structures right, the code is obvious (Brooks).
You're right to say "accreting". I'm not sure about "random", but you're wrong to call the code "detritus". The engineering on git is really top-notch, extremely performant, but only where needed; and with the most helpful error messages I've ever seen. It has many great aside features, like git diff --color-words.
I'm not an git expert; I expect there's much more.
PS you're also right it's Saint-Exupéry, not Exupery.
Comments
You're right that git isn't an extension of anyone's body - but few engineering projects, where this quote is often applied, are.
But you're wrong to describe his prototype code as "hacky" - especially when I'm referring to the design - which really is pared down to the essentials. Even "streamlined" and "precisely suited to its purpose". It's also not "just starting out", in the sense that the design was informed by BitKeeper, just much simpler.
When you get your data structures right, the code is obvious (Brooks).
You're right to say "accreting". I'm not sure about "random", but you're wrong to call the code "detritus". The engineering on git is really top-notch, extremely performant, but only where needed; and with the most helpful error messages I've ever seen. It has many great aside features, like git diff --color-words. I'm not an git expert; I expect there's much more.
PS you're also right it's Saint-Exupéry, not Exupery.