3 ms·
Oh, certainly. My comments is to highlight that there's no research that helps identify if these personal beliefs are generally true. Perhaps it's only useful f
by dalke 11y ago
Oh, certainly. My comments is to highlight that there's no research that helps identify if these personal beliefs are generally true. Perhaps it's only useful for large (>1M LOC) projects, or 40% of programmers. Perhaps it's worse for spike projects with 1-3 people, <1KLOC, and <1 week of development, as compared to auto-backups of a project directory every 10 minutes and/or vim's "go back in time" history tracking.
We don't really know, beyond personal experience, which is why this is very debatable.
- dilap 11y agoI programmed for a long time (middle school to the end of college) on 1 person or 2 person projects without version control. I'd just manually copy the directory when I'd made significant progress, or wanted to experiment with a different approach. Multi-person collaboration happened by working out who would work on what ahead of time and manually merging the bits back together. It worked great, and even though I now use git for even personal projects, I'm not sure it's on balance useful, along the lines of your thinking. Because: VC warps your thinking. You change your work habits and spend time crafting this artifact, the VC commit history, which is secondary to your actual goal. For example, there's a tendency to quickly jump between different areas, or make unrelated changes, because that works against the nice 'commit-per-thing' history that looks nice in VC. So no VC doesn't seem so crazy to me :)