4 ms·

We do, at least to my mind. It's called Mercurial. It's great, extremely close to git, but is much easier to use IMO. It's really a damn shame that git won -

We do, at least to my mind. It's called Mercurial. It's great, extremely close to git, but is much easier to use IMO. It's really a damn shame that git won - primarily, I think, due to the cachet of its author.

dilyevsky 4y ago
The way I remember it git one for two reasons: 1. hg was (maybe still is?) much slower 2. “No technology can ever be too arcane or complicated for the black t-shirt crowd” (fake Linus’s words not mine)
- gregjor 4y ago
  I think you’re quoting me. Thanks! https://typicalprogrammer.com/linus-torvalds-goes-off-on-linux-and-git https://typicalprogrammer.com/linus-torvalds-goes-off-on-lin...
bigDinosaur 4y ago
Either way, is Git actually that hard to use? You can learn about 10 commands and develop any software just with those. I have no illusions about it's gnarly aspects but also just don't find it particularly difficult. Contrast a programming language that might have footguns in just printing strings.
- photonbeam 4y ago
  Git is a pain to provide support for if you’re an internal tools team, lots of users with incorrect mental models
shanev 4y ago
Close. It won because of Github. Git was gaining over SVN slowly but it was Github that really propelled it into widespread use.