5 ms·

Yes! Absolutely! So I can focus on innovating where it matters (the product I'm developing). It alao would mean those things would be extremely polished (becaus

Yes! Absolutely! So I can focus on innovating where it matters (the product I'm developing). It alao would mean those things would be extremely polished (because a lot of people affected and interested to make it good). Also I would not need to learn so much random stuff I don't really care about.

hvidgaard 8y ago
You're free to choose a tool and use that so you can focus on the product. But only having one tool would be rather counter productive for the community as a whole.
rleigh 8y ago
This level of rigidity would preclude the gradual adoption of newer workflows, and hence be a hard blocker preventing any improvement or advancement. I hesitate to criticise it, but I don't think such an environment would be polished. A frozen environment is one which can't be improved, so will naturally stagnate. You couldn't achieve a state of being "extremely polished" because those who cared to do the polishing would be denied the ability to do so because it requires change in order to do so.
- Walkman 8y ago
  You might be right on one hand, but do you think Git is "stagnating"? I don't think so.
BeetleB 8y ago
In my experience, every time I've encountered someone who has this point of view, what they really mean is "Yes, we should have one way to do it, and it should be the way I like". The obvious counterpoint to your statement is that if your mentality held sway, we would never have had Git and would still be on SVN.
- Walkman 8y ago
  I'm not saying this because of my rigid opinion, but because of productivity. I WISH Mercurial was the one who caught on, because everyone says it's better, more intuitive (oh, and it's written in Python which I absolutely love) but this is not the case, Git won and people should accept that. To put another way; I HATE git, I LOVE Mercurial, but Git won, it's ubiquitous and Mercurial is not that much better.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Gcc for the longest time was the only open source C/C++ compiler. It worked fine, but you really could not consider it "polished", despite a lot of people being affected and interested to make it good. It wasn't until LLVM came around that it got better. Having one thing doesn't ensure at all that it will be polished. In fact, it's more likely that it will stagnate.
- Walkman 8y ago
  Again, the difference in that case is that llvm is probably an order of magnitude better than gcc. Mercurial is not.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I don't believe that argument is relevant to the discussion.
  - bzbarsky 8y ago
    llvm is not an order of magnitude better than gcc as a compiler.
    - jhasse 8y ago
      It has a completely different open-source license and that's probably the reason why people bothered. Hg and Git are both GPLv2.

hvidgaard 8y ago

You're free to choose a tool and use that so you can focus on the product. But only having one tool would be rather counter productive for the community as a whole.

rleigh 8y ago

This level of rigidity would preclude the gradual adoption of newer workflows, and hence be a hard blocker preventing any improvement or advancement. I hesitate to criticise it, but I don't think such an environment would be polished. A frozen environment is one which can't be improved, so will naturally stagnate. You couldn't achieve a state of being "extremely polished" because those who cared to do the polishing would be denied the ability to do so because it requires change in order to do so.

Walkman 8y ago
You might be right on one hand, but do you think Git is "stagnating"? I don't think so.

BeetleB 8y ago

In my experience, every time I've encountered someone who has this point of view, what they really mean is "Yes, we should have one way to do it, and it should be the way I like". The obvious counterpoint to your statement is that if your mentality held sway, we would never have had Git and would still be on SVN.

Walkman 8y ago
I'm not saying this because of my rigid opinion, but because of productivity. I WISH Mercurial was the one who caught on, because everyone says it's better, more intuitive (oh, and it's written in Python which I absolutely love) but this is not the case, Git won and people should accept that. To put another way; I HATE git, I LOVE Mercurial, but Git won, it's ubiquitous and Mercurial is not that much better.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Gcc for the longest time was the only open source C/C++ compiler. It worked fine, but you really could not consider it "polished", despite a lot of people being affected and interested to make it good. It wasn't until LLVM came around that it got better. Having one thing doesn't ensure at all that it will be polished. In fact, it's more likely that it will stagnate.

Walkman 8y ago
Again, the difference in that case is that llvm is probably an order of magnitude better than gcc. Mercurial is not.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I don't believe that argument is relevant to the discussion.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  llvm is not an order of magnitude better than gcc as a compiler.
  - jhasse 8y ago
    It has a completely different open-source license and that's probably the reason why people bothered. Hg and Git are both GPLv2.