This reasoning has very serious limits, however. Every tool influences your behavior. Imagine if Git was somehow 10x slower. It's already quite fast still, but

This reasoning has very serious limits, however. Every tool influences your behavior. Imagine if Git was somehow 10x slower. It's already quite fast still, but still way slower (e.g. on Windows for some cases). Does this mean you should now use 10x the amount of repositories to compensate, because "it's more pleasant to use Git with smaller repositories"? There's a line between bending your back for the tool, vs the other way around. Put another way: what if git was suddenly 100x faster, at every scale for every repository? Would you put more stuff in there? Some limits are real (e.g. Google has like an 80TB source repository, you're screwed there). But some of the limits are absolutely artificial in a sense. There's definitely something to be said for misusing Git in ways it shouldn't be used. And if you're Google or Microsoft or Facebook -- whatever, you have a thousand other problems. But honestly, "I want it to be able to handle large repositories" has never seemed like a fundamental "misuse" of any version control tool. It actually seems like something we've only told ourselves is a misuse, because literally every available tool is just incredibly bad at, it fundamentally.