3 ms·
This article reinforces a lot of my biases around early bets. Taste is so so important, everyone looks at you weird when you say you're betting on "niche, taste
by seveibar 2y ago
This article reinforces a lot of my biases around early bets. Taste is so so important, everyone looks at you weird when you say you're betting on "niche, tasteful solution" (git) instead of "common, gross solution" (SVN). Github bet on Git and made tasteful choices, and that was a huge propellant for them.
I feel the same way about tscircuit (my current startup), it's a weird bet to create circuit boards with web technologies, nobody really does it, but the ergonomics _feel better_, and I just have to trust my taste!
- nprateem 2y agoIt's just survivorship bias. If HH hadn't won no one would be trying to reverse justify their success. This bet worked, the mercurial ones didn't.
- aidenn0 2y agoI would argue that hg was more tasetful than git at the time github began. The one thing git had going for it was that the most common operations were absurdly fast from the beginning, while hg took a bit of time to catch up.
- seveibar 2y agoI agree with this take, I think hg could have overtaken git for a while, but git catered a bit better to the OS communities and hg catered a bit more to big companies from a DX perspective. Maybe in this case, the important thing is knowing that your partners/technologies are aligned with your vision of the future- git has been more open-source first (I would argue)
- digging 2y agoNot sure what is even meant by "taste" here; what I see over and over is that convenience wins, where winning is defined as widespread use.
- rustyminnow 2y agoThe article uses "taste" pretty broadly compared to many folks in the comments. First mention is about the site being pretty. But later he says "We had taste. We cared about the experience" which more aligns with your perspective of convenience.