8 ms·

"If you are using Subversion, stop it. Just stop. Subversion = Leeches. Mercurial and Git = Antibiotics." This is great. A few years ago, DVCS was weird and s

by graywh 17y ago

"If you are using Subversion, stop it. Just stop. Subversion = Leeches. Mercurial and Git = Antibiotics." This is great. A few years ago, DVCS was weird and strange and SVN was the stuff. When people discover how awesome Git and Mercurial are, they stab SVN/CVS in the back.

axod 17y ago
Such is the life of hipsters.
kylemathews 17y ago
"stab SVN/CVS in the back"??? I'm not sure why you're borrowing an assassination metaphor to describe someone's shift in technology choices. Technology aren't people.
- graywh 17y ago
  Would you rather I'd said "throw X under the bus"?
  - pingswept 17y ago
    No one has to be executed here. How about "start using a different tool"?
Sukotto 17y ago
That's just life in technology as the tools improve. 1) Stop manually backing up versions, that's error-prone. Use RCS! 2) Stop using RCS, it doesn't scale. Use CVS! 3) Stop using CVS, it's too complicated. Use SVN! 4) Stop using SVN, it makes it hard to merge branches. Use Hg/GIT! ... And someday, we'll be saying 5) Stop using Hg/GIT. They ________. Use _______! Same thing for hardware, and languages, and frameworks... and just about everything. shrug
- axod 17y ago
  It's funny how it's usually easier to ditch X, and write Y from scratch, rather than try to improve X.
  - Jasber 17y ago
    I agree and don't think it's limited to programming. Considering business, it's difficult for a large established organization to make drastic changes. It's much easier for a new entrant (startups) to innovate because they don't have the same baggage.
    - mechanical_fish 17y ago
      Yes, where by "baggage" you mean "vitally important existing customers, users, and dependencies that will break if you change anything".
      - Jasber 17y ago
        Yes, I do. But that doesn't change my statement. If you're not willing to break your business to change with the times, someone else will--and by the time you react it's too late.
    - jmaygarden 17y ago
      Case in point: Blockbuster versus Netflix http://www.onlykent.com/20100318/blockbuster-bankruptcy-2010-latest-news-and-shares-drop/ http://www.onlykent.com/20100318/blockbuster-bankruptcy-2010...
  - dschobel 17y ago
    I think this affects version control systems specifically because the nature of the beast is to create a format to track changes over a long period of time. Changing that format is a huge pain in the ass and rarely worth it. In VCSes more than in regular software, you really have to get the design right very early in the process.
  - 17y ago
jefarmstrong 17y ago
It really still depends on your use case. At my day job I advocated switching from SVN to HG and the change has been great - now we "branch" and merge constantly and it really helped our processes. On my iPhone game at home I still use SVN with beanstalk.com and it works great.
geebee 17y ago
It is great, but I actually think it's a little unfair. CVS was better than directories with date suffixes, and SVN was better than CVS. Git sounds better than SVN. But to me, SVN isn't one of those technologies that I'll look back on and despise. Sometimes you look back on a technology and wish it had never existed (the original EJB seems to inspire this in some people), sometimes you look back on it and see deep flaws but still have respect for it as a first crack at a problem (some people look on the original Struts framework this way), and some you look back on fondly even if you no longer personally use it (a lot of ruby/python folks seem to look back on perl this way). To torture the analogy, I'd say SVN is a moderately effective antibiotic that has been replaced with a more effective one that has fewer side effects. But a leech? Come on, it was a good technology.
run4yourlives 17y ago
Old technology that has been surpassed should be stabbed in the back. That doesn't mean the old technology can't be appreciated, just that it's place in the world has changed. Nobody is driving 55 Chevy's around anymore. Some people dedicated aspects of their lives to appreciating the time and space when that technology was dominant, but their glory days have passed. So has subversion's.

by graywh 17y ago

axod 17y ago

Such is the life of hipsters.

kylemathews 17y ago

"stab SVN/CVS in the back"??? I'm not sure why you're borrowing an assassination metaphor to describe someone's shift in technology choices. Technology aren't people.

graywh 17y ago
Would you rather I'd said "throw X under the bus"?
- pingswept 17y ago
  No one has to be executed here. How about "start using a different tool"?

Sukotto 17y ago

That's just life in technology as the tools improve. 1) Stop manually backing up versions, that's error-prone. Use RCS! 2) Stop using RCS, it doesn't scale. Use CVS! 3) Stop using CVS, it's too complicated. Use SVN! 4) Stop using SVN, it makes it hard to merge branches. Use Hg/GIT! ... And someday, we'll be saying 5) Stop using Hg/GIT. They ________. Use _______! Same thing for hardware, and languages, and frameworks... and just about everything. shrug

axod 17y ago
It's funny how it's usually easier to ditch X, and write Y from scratch, rather than try to improve X.
- Jasber 17y ago
  I agree and don't think it's limited to programming. Considering business, it's difficult for a large established organization to make drastic changes. It's much easier for a new entrant (startups) to innovate because they don't have the same baggage.
  - mechanical_fish 17y ago
    Yes, where by "baggage" you mean "vitally important existing customers, users, and dependencies that will break if you change anything".
    - Jasber 17y ago
      Yes, I do. But that doesn't change my statement. If you're not willing to break your business to change with the times, someone else will--and by the time you react it's too late.
  - jmaygarden 17y ago
    Case in point: Blockbuster versus Netflix http://www.onlykent.com/20100318/blockbuster-bankruptcy-2010-latest-news-and-shares-drop/ http://www.onlykent.com/20100318/blockbuster-bankruptcy-2010...
- dschobel 17y ago
  I think this affects version control systems specifically because the nature of the beast is to create a format to track changes over a long period of time. Changing that format is a huge pain in the ass and rarely worth it. In VCSes more than in regular software, you really have to get the design right very early in the process.
- 17y ago

jefarmstrong 17y ago

It really still depends on your use case. At my day job I advocated switching from SVN to HG and the change has been great - now we "branch" and merge constantly and it really helped our processes. On my iPhone game at home I still use SVN with beanstalk.com and it works great.

geebee 17y ago

It is great, but I actually think it's a little unfair. CVS was better than directories with date suffixes, and SVN was better than CVS. Git sounds better than SVN. But to me, SVN isn't one of those technologies that I'll look back on and despise. Sometimes you look back on a technology and wish it had never existed (the original EJB seems to inspire this in some people), sometimes you look back on it and see deep flaws but still have respect for it as a first crack at a problem (some people look on the original Struts framework this way), and some you look back on fondly even if you no longer personally use it (a lot of ruby/python folks seem to look back on perl this way). To torture the analogy, I'd say SVN is a moderately effective antibiotic that has been replaced with a more effective one that has fewer side effects. But a leech? Come on, it was a good technology.

run4yourlives 17y ago

Old technology that has been surpassed should be stabbed in the back. That doesn't mean the old technology can't be appreciated, just that it's place in the world has changed. Nobody is driving 55 Chevy's around anymore. Some people dedicated aspects of their lives to appreciating the time and space when that technology was dominant, but their glory days have passed. So has subversion's.