4 ms·

Ooof. There are lots of things git does well (distributed development), things it doesn't do very well that were done better by (some) other systems before git

Ooof. There are lots of things git does well (distributed development), things it doesn't do very well that were done better by (some) other systems before git was even built (automated merges), and things git just doesn't bother with doing well (looking at that command line syntax.) There's a LOT of room for improvement, but there's no profit incentive for improvement, and let's be honest, git is very nice at it's price point, so we're likely at a local maxima for a while. Not the worst situation, but the world could be better. Disclosure: I spent the 90s working on a different source code management system. People have _opinions_ on what makes a great SCM, and it's definitely not 'one size fits all'.

oldgradstudent 3y ago
> There's a LOT of room for improvement, but there's no profit incentive for improvement, and let's be honest, git is very nice at it's price point, so we're likely at a local maxima for a while. There was no profit incentive for creating Git. It still got created and became popular. It's just that Git is far closer to good enough than what came before it - many of those were true horrors (I'm looking at you ClearCase).
- bsder 3y ago
  > There was no profit incentive for creating Git. It still got created and became popular. That's not the whole story. There was lots of profit incentive behind Github. And is was Github that won, not Git. Git was carried along as a parasite.