3 ms·
> But the network effects make git predominant now. That and the fact that it's... well, it's a good system - if perhaps not with the best UX. It works well f
by cassianoleal 2y ago
> But the network effects make git predominant now.
That and the fact that it's... well, it's a good system - if perhaps not with the best UX.
It works well for pretty much everyone who cares to learn the basics, and then you can evolve from there with more practice. Which is probably true of any system.
- nine_k 2y agoIndeed, git is pretty good internally, despite the clunkiness of the CLI. But, say, Mercurial is also pretty good in many aspects. It used to be rather popular, but its popularity is waning, and not because of some kind of technical inferiority.
- cassianoleal 2y agoAccording to the post I originally responded to: > or were too slow to for larger projects like Linux (Mercurial). So it seems like there were technical reasons for Git vs. Mercurial. I don't really know and having never used Mercurial, I couldn't comment on how good it is or how it compares with Git. From what I read around, it's mostly the UX that's marginally better on the Mercurial side. This is the point where the network effect certainly has weight. If one offering is not better enough than the one people are used to, there is no compelling reason to learn something anew and move all existing projects over. When there is great technical reason, people will move though and the network effect will start moving across. See the previous systems that were popular before Git: Subversion, CVS, ClearCase, etc. Those have mostly been phased out completely, except maybe for older projects that have them ingrained into their processes and technology.