4 ms·

if 99.99% of dev use Git you have to use Git, using your own solution that no one else uses or know or need to know is bad. That's pretty much the opposite of

if 99.99% of dev use Git you have to use Git, using your own solution that no one else uses or know or need to know is bad. That's pretty much the opposite of progress. At one time, 99.9% of developers used CP/M. At time, 99.9% of web was done in PHP. At one time, 99.9% of developers IBM XTs. At one time 99.9% of developers used SourceForce and SVN. Stuff changes. Monoculture is bad for the tech industry.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
inferiorhuman 3y ago
On the one hand I'm inclined to agree about monoculture, on the other I've worked at a company where one employee dictated that we use bzr. Basically everything was an order of magnitude more difficult through minimal fault of bzr. None of the third party tooling worked with bzr, or if something did have bzr support it was dropped ages ago. It's kind of the same situation with Github. The pain in moving away from it as they continue to slaughter the UX is still pretty great. So yeah monoculture is bad but progress is painful.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  To me that just sounds like an example of the reason to avoid tight coupling. If something breaks beacause it cares that I use git and only git, then it's that something that is broken and to be avoided, not the git alternative.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Having been that person (albeit before Git was the one true way), I'm sorry. But seemed so nice and had solid externals and sparse checkouts back in the day. And as bad as it got for us, it still felt easier to pick up and use than early Git.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Sure, and I was that person with the svn -> git migration at a different gig. Ideally our behavior matures over time. For me, at least, two things eventually made git really manageable: github and the O'Reilly book. After those git was a no brainer. Even with git becoming the de facto standard, if you don't need the integrations it's not so unreasonable to use something else (altho bzr's been discontinued).
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
>> 99.9% of developers used SourceForce and SVN. SourceSafe!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

inferiorhuman 3y ago

On the one hand I'm inclined to agree about monoculture, on the other I've worked at a company where one employee dictated that we use bzr. Basically everything was an order of magnitude more difficult through minimal fault of bzr. None of the third party tooling worked with bzr, or if something did have bzr support it was dropped ages ago. It's kind of the same situation with Github. The pain in moving away from it as they continue to slaughter the UX is still pretty great. So yeah monoculture is bad but progress is painful.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
To me that just sounds like an example of the reason to avoid tight coupling. If something breaks beacause it cares that I use git and only git, then it's that something that is broken and to be avoided, not the git alternative.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Having been that person (albeit before Git was the one true way), I'm sorry. But seemed so nice and had solid externals and sparse checkouts back in the day. And as bad as it got for us, it still felt easier to pick up and use than early Git.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  Sure, and I was that person with the svn -> git migration at a different gig. Ideally our behavior matures over time. For me, at least, two things eventually made git really manageable: github and the O'Reilly book. After those git was a no brainer. Even with git becoming the de facto standard, if you don't need the integrations it's not so unreasonable to use something else (altho bzr's been discontinued).

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago

>> 99.9% of developers used SourceForce and SVN. SourceSafe!