Zack, I'm directing this straight at you since I see you're the author of this post. Honestly, posts like this are just detrimental to both communities. They'r

Zack, I'm directing this straight at you since I see you're the author of this post. Honestly, posts like this are just detrimental to both communities. They're immature and show a complete lack of understanding of software development. Choosing the right tool for the job is rarely easy as "high level" and "low level". Git was created to solve a specific need: Distributed development of the Linux kernel. The fact that it's been adopted by so many developers outside of the Kernel community shows that it is at minimum an adequate tool for the job. I'd go ahead and say, for those developers, Git > Mercurial. That's why they choose it. For the developers who choose Mercurial, Mercurial > Git. That's why they've chosen Mercurial. Please, before you publish stuff like this, remember that we're all on the same team. Next time, advocate Mercurial by talking about how it's improved your workflow. Talk about why Mercurial is better than Git for you, perhaps talk about the technical differences of the underlying implementations on a conceptual level. That way, maybe you could help someone make an informed choice about what to use, instead of basing their decision on something as silly as the language it's written in.