The "core" (most of the "plumbing") was always C/C++ and most of those bash scripts (with very few Perl exceptions) were automating GNU C/C++ tools. I've certai

The "core" (most of the "plumbing") was always C/C++ and most of those bash scripts (with very few Perl exceptions) were automating GNU C/C++ tools. I've certainly referred to git as a Frankenstein's monster of shell scripts myself, but the sorts of developers that hate Python often don't seem to see bash scripts, they see lots of little invocations of C/C++ tools and "C/C++ core" matters to them. (They also tend to get irrationally angry when you challenge that logic and point out what the C in CPython, the most common Python runtime, stands for.) > Whether it was the language or not, Mercurial was objectively slower than Git. That was not my experience, but I was on Windows at the time. Mercurial "objectively" had good Windows performance. (Not just because it ran at all, versus how much work it took to tame Frankenstein's Monster of shell scripts that was early git to run at all on Windows. But also because it's file system transaction model always fit Windows better.) (ETA: Also, to be fair, my "team" at the time was darcs and my opinions on VCS performance at the time were from a very different perspective.)