5 ms·

Slightly off-topic - I don't think real-time collaboration is suitable for text-based formats. I believe collaboration similar to working with git is superior:

Slightly off-topic - I don't think real-time collaboration is suitable for text-based formats. I believe collaboration similar to working with git is superior: 1. Fork the text 2. Submit proposal 3. Review 4. Merge/Cancel EDIT: To slightly expand on this - there are many reasons for this intuition - the main, IMO, is that people like to work on text privately before showing it to people. Also, the mental fear of your text interrupted by someone else. There might be even more reasons.

madeofpalk 3y ago
This might be true for writing an essay. But plenty of collaborative text-editing happens on a much smaller/informal/ad hoc scale. My personal experience of using Google Docs/Sheets strongly disagrees with you.
- layer8 3y ago
  Asynchronous editing on a centralized platform only infrequently causes actual conflicts in practice, like multiple users editing the same sentence at the same time. Either the editing is actually sequential in time, or independent parts of the document are being edited. With asynchronous decentralized/offline editing, conflicts become more likely.
jitl 3y ago
What's great about CRDTs is that they're really good at both real-time and asynchronous collaboration, unlike the operational transform system used by Google Docs. Asynchronous collaboration is Peritext's major motivation [1]: > We interviewed eight people who regularly collaborate professionally on documents such as news articles, and several told us that they found real-time collaboration a stressful experience: they felt performative, self-conscious of others witnessing their messy work-in-progress, or irritated when a collaborator acted on suggestions before the editing pass was complete. When doing creative work, they preferred to have space to ideate and experiment in private, sharing their progress only when they are ready to do so. > With asynchronous collaboration, this is possible: a user may work in isolation on their own copy of a document for a while, without seeing other users’ real-time updates; sometime later, when they are ready to share their work, they can choose to merge it with their collaborators’ edits. Several such copies may exist side-by-side, and some might never be merged (e.g. if the user changed their mind about a set of edits). [1]: https://www.inkandswitch.com/peritext/ https://www.inkandswitch.com/peritext/
- rubymamis 3y ago
  So they mention my exact concerns and addressed them, very cool. But their solution in practice doesn't look very different from what we can already achieve with git (apart from seeing your collaborator changes in real-time, which I'm not sure how substantial it is), or am I missing something? At the end of the day, how will this look to the end user? > a user may work in isolation on their own copy of a document for a while, without seeing other users’ real-time updates; sometime later, when they are ready to share their work, they can choose to merge it with their collaborators’ edits. Several such copies may exist side-by-side, and some might never be merged (e.g. if the user changed their mind about a set of edits). Again, this sounds almost exactly like what we already achieve using git, so why do we need CRDTs for that?
  - spencerflem 3y ago
    The merging is automatic, for one
    - josephg 3y ago
      Yeah; and the merging is correct in all cases. You don't get spurious conflicts like you can with git. Also the same system can work both in realtime and offline scenarios. And CRDTs can handle a lot more than just plain text editing. That said, one thing git does that I like is that sometimes I want conflict markers to be added to my document when concurrent edits happen on the same line. CRDTs (and REGs like this) store strictly more information than git does, so theoretically it should be possible to make a CRDT which adds conflict markers too like git does. But as far as I know, nobody has built that yet! I really hope someone does, because it would be really neat. I really want a git style version control system built on top of CRDTs with optional merge conflicts.
      - bmacho 3y ago
        > Yeah; and the merging is correct in all cases. No, it's obviously not. I'd say most of the time the merging is incorrect, that is, it is in contrast to both of the parties intention. Unlike git, which actually notifies them, Loro just silently modifies both changes into something nonsense/wrong.
mikebelanger 3y ago
Git is still great for developers, who are comfortable with the command-line and are willing to learn all of Git's concepts. But let's be honest, Git isn't the most friendly tool for most computer users, many of whom have never touched any command-line interface, let alone Git. And yes, there's git-GUIs, but I find those are even more complex.
ghizmandier 3y ago
Hey, sounds like you'd love what we're building @ Ellipsus — https://ellipsus.com https://ellipsus.com We started off your same exact assumptions and built a text editor that combines the best of both worlds: you can collaborate in real-time on the same piece; or branch off of it, work on your own and then have it reviewed and merged back into the main branch. That and other features that should make writing together a pleasure. Reach out if you want to give it a spin, we'd appreciate your feedback!
- rubymamis 3y ago
  Looks awesome! Love the website. I signed up for the wait list.

madeofpalk 3y ago

This might be true for writing an essay. But plenty of collaborative text-editing happens on a much smaller/informal/ad hoc scale. My personal experience of using Google Docs/Sheets strongly disagrees with you.

layer8 3y ago
Asynchronous editing on a centralized platform only infrequently causes actual conflicts in practice, like multiple users editing the same sentence at the same time. Either the editing is actually sequential in time, or independent parts of the document are being edited. With asynchronous decentralized/offline editing, conflicts become more likely.

jitl 3y ago

What's great about CRDTs is that they're really good at both real-time and asynchronous collaboration, unlike the operational transform system used by Google Docs. Asynchronous collaboration is Peritext's major motivation [1]: > We interviewed eight people who regularly collaborate professionally on documents such as news articles, and several told us that they found real-time collaboration a stressful experience: they felt performative, self-conscious of others witnessing their messy work-in-progress, or irritated when a collaborator acted on suggestions before the editing pass was complete. When doing creative work, they preferred to have space to ideate and experiment in private, sharing their progress only when they are ready to do so. > With asynchronous collaboration, this is possible: a user may work in isolation on their own copy of a document for a while, without seeing other users’ real-time updates; sometime later, when they are ready to share their work, they can choose to merge it with their collaborators’ edits. Several such copies may exist side-by-side, and some might never be merged (e.g. if the user changed their mind about a set of edits). [1]: https://www.inkandswitch.com/peritext/ https://www.inkandswitch.com/peritext/

rubymamis 3y ago
So they mention my exact concerns and addressed them, very cool. But their solution in practice doesn't look very different from what we can already achieve with git (apart from seeing your collaborator changes in real-time, which I'm not sure how substantial it is), or am I missing something? At the end of the day, how will this look to the end user? > a user may work in isolation on their own copy of a document for a while, without seeing other users’ real-time updates; sometime later, when they are ready to share their work, they can choose to merge it with their collaborators’ edits. Several such copies may exist side-by-side, and some might never be merged (e.g. if the user changed their mind about a set of edits). Again, this sounds almost exactly like what we already achieve using git, so why do we need CRDTs for that?
- spencerflem 3y ago
  The merging is automatic, for one
  - josephg 3y ago
    Yeah; and the merging is correct in all cases. You don't get spurious conflicts like you can with git. Also the same system can work both in realtime and offline scenarios. And CRDTs can handle a lot more than just plain text editing. That said, one thing git does that I like is that sometimes I want conflict markers to be added to my document when concurrent edits happen on the same line. CRDTs (and REGs like this) store strictly more information than git does, so theoretically it should be possible to make a CRDT which adds conflict markers too like git does. But as far as I know, nobody has built that yet! I really hope someone does, because it would be really neat. I really want a git style version control system built on top of CRDTs with optional merge conflicts.
    - bmacho 3y ago
      > Yeah; and the merging is correct in all cases. No, it's obviously not. I'd say most of the time the merging is incorrect, that is, it is in contrast to both of the parties intention. Unlike git, which actually notifies them, Loro just silently modifies both changes into something nonsense/wrong.

mikebelanger 3y ago

Git is still great for developers, who are comfortable with the command-line and are willing to learn all of Git's concepts. But let's be honest, Git isn't the most friendly tool for most computer users, many of whom have never touched any command-line interface, let alone Git. And yes, there's git-GUIs, but I find those are even more complex.

ghizmandier 3y ago

Hey, sounds like you'd love what we're building @ Ellipsus — https://ellipsus.com https://ellipsus.com We started off your same exact assumptions and built a text editor that combines the best of both worlds: you can collaborate in real-time on the same piece; or branch off of it, work on your own and then have it reviewed and merged back into the main branch. That and other features that should make writing together a pleasure. Reach out if you want to give it a spin, we'd appreciate your feedback!

rubymamis 3y ago
Looks awesome! Love the website. I signed up for the wait list.