apt is mostly intended as a new binary with some of the commonly used features of both
apt-cache (with more to be added later, probably), and with a "simplified" interface. Most of
APT's available command line functionality is exposed via
apt-get, but these commands aren't ideal from a user experience point of view. Since those two binaries were intended as test/example commands (originally by Jason Gunthorpe, I believe), and not for serious end-user usage.
apt command is meant to be easier to use, and more "user-friendly". People often find it confusing that functionality is split between
apt-cache for instance.
See comments by Michael Vogt in his blog post:
I don't think it is particularly meant to be about overcoming design mistakes.
So, it's not intended as an
For more information, try asking the APT developers themselves. They are super-cool, but they don't hang out on Stack Exchange. Try
#debian-apt on OFTC instead.
Comments from Michael Vogt on the said
#debian-apt channel; I posted
the question link on the IRC channel.
<mvo> faheem: "design mistakes" is a bit of a strong word - we are just
scared of changing anything in apt-get because it's used in a
gazillion scripts by now. "apt" lets us do that plus it's easier to
type and we can combine apt-get/apt-cache. so I think the answers are
all fine, the key part is really that apt is more convenient to
<￼mvo> faheem: [snip] the gist is that apt/apt-get/apt-cache all share
the same library and code, just some tweaks to the default.