6 ms·

I would call it a "theoretically sound current-gen DVCS". Unfortunately, theoretically sound is no guarantee for success, quite the opposite.

• fnord123 8y ago
  cf darcs
  • simias 8y ago
    I recall that one of the main problems with darcs is that it was almost comically slow even on moderately sized codebases. I suppose it might have improved later on but by then Git and Hg were too far ahead.
    • stevekemp 8y ago
      Darcs was plagued with speed issues. With just the "right" set of patches you could watch it spin for infinite amounts of time. That said darcs was a pleasure to use, when it worked, and I have fond memories of it if I ignore the speed/corruption issues.
    • WorldMaker 8y ago
      Part of the problem of darcs wasn't so much that it was slow (it was fast enough in most day-to-day operations), it was that it was hard to predict when it might be slow in a given operation. Slow performance across the board is something that you can solve at scale by throwing more hardware at it or producing warnings/progress statements for it (there are a lot of cases where you don't care how long something takes if it just gives you a well updated progress bar for it). Slow performance under circumstances you and the app can't predict is a lot harder (an unwelcome relative of our good old friend, the Halting Problem).