In my 25ish years I’d professional dev, I’ve used git for about 15 of them. I’ve never used Perforce and never even heard of Sapling.
It’s very likely that most if not all of the software stack you’re using to post your comment is managed with git.
It’s very likely that most if not all of the software stack you’re using to post your comment is managed with git.
A whole generation of programmers have only ever known Git and GitHub. They assume that since it is the standard it must be good. This is a fallacy.
Bad things can become popular and become entrenched even when better things exist. Replacing Git today would require something not just a little better but radically better. Git was always worse than Mercurial. It won because of GitHub. If MercurialHub had been invented instead we’d all be using that and would be much happier. Alas.
I don’t object to saying we can do better than git. But saying git “is for hobby side projects” is ridiculous. It’s fine for serious projects.
Git sucks for serious projects. It’s certainly what many people use. But I don’t think “we can do better” is a strong enough statement. Git is bad and sucks. It’s functional but bad. We can do much much better than Git.
I like to rant about Git because we will never do better unless people demand it. If people think it’s good enough then we’ll never get something better. That makes me sad.
again, hard disagree. I work on serious projects all day long. Git is fabulous for serious projects.
hard disagree. Git was always way better than Mercurial.
> It won because of GitHub.
I and most of the developers I have worked with over the years all used git for many years before ever even trying GitHub. GitHub obviously has helped adoption, but I'm not convinced that git would not have won even if GitHub had never existed.
How is Git better than Mercurial in any way nevermind "always way better". Serious question.
I'd possibly accept "the original Mercurial implementation was Python which was slow". And perhaps that's why Git won rather than GitHub. But I don't think so.
MercurialHub was invented. It’s called Bitbucket, it was founded around the same time as GitHub, and it started out with Mercurial. People wanted Git, so Bitbucket was forced to switch to Git.
No. If Bitbucket competed with MercurialHub then MercurialHub would still have won and we’d all be much happier today.
Look, I get that you hate Git, but people had the choice of using Mercurial or Git – on the same platform even – and they overwhelmingly chose Git. You claiming that Mercurial would win in a fair fight ignores the fact that that fight did actually happen and Mercurial lost.
GitHub won. Not Git. IMHO.
> If MercurialHub had been invented instead we’d all be using that
This existed. We aren’t.