3 ms·
> for tracking source code changes (that is, changes to structured text files). Which is exactly what they claim to use it for. > so they could have gone simp
by 9rx 1y ago
> for tracking source code changes (that is, changes to structured text files).
Which is exactly what they claim to use it for.
> so they could have gone simpler.
Maybe, but they also claim that it is a desirable, maybe even necessary, property to ingrate with existing git use. So you can only go simpler until you have to actually interface with git and then any possible downsides of git come rearing their ugly head at this point anyway. So what have you gained by just not using git from top to bottom?
- _alternator_ 1y agoI will grant that there is one use case where git is better than postgres, which is tracking source code changes. But to use git as a database instead of postgres is ... misleading? Clickbait? Trolling?
- 9rx 1y ago> But to use git as a database instead of postgres is ... misleading? Clickbait? Trolling? Contextual. You are right that the article is a bit hard to follow where it goes down roads that it also says you shouldn't actually do, but that is there just to explain that git is a database, which isn't as obvious as it should be to some people. There are no doubt better ways to get that idea across, but someone in the business of providing managed Postgres hosting isn't apt to have writing long-form text as a core competency. Nor should one need to have it as their core competency. Writing is for everyone — even those who aren't particularly good at it.