Commercially speaking, going against Git is a fool's errand. As much as I'd like to see Git usurped, I can't imagine the people backing this would sign off on a competitor to Git unless it was some type of sidecar. No doubt it'll be tightly coupled to Zed as well which is concerning. Perhaps this is pessimistic but I don't have faith the team are going to deliver anything groundbreaking given their entire business is existing technology, but less shit. No one is going to move core infrastructure for less shit or slightly better, otherwise we'd be using Mercurial or Darcs.
That's what's trouble: git is reaching the end of its useful life.
It's 25 years old, and the patch files that make up the core of the decentralized collaboration system are fully 50 years old. Have the design requirements and constraints perhaps changed over the last 50 years?
1. Git breaks down if files are too large or lines within files are too large.
2. Add/Rename conflicts will always burn you because git does not protect the intent behind changes.
And really the third is that IDE's are shit because there's no document object model (like the browser has). You have to make an error recovering parser to try to deal with the fact that an IDE is editing code half the time and text half the time. You're stuck playing a game you can't possibly win. Can you imagine if the HTML DOM kept blinking into and out of existence? It'd be a nightmare...
If this is targeted at competing with git, I agree it’s a useless attempt.
If it’s targeted at working alongside git, and competing with the “local history” provided by like vscode, jetbrains and even vim where they track all saves to files it might serve a purpose?
The latter could be “useful” as an offline record. But the way they’re talking about sharing that, it feels like this is targeted at replacing git.
hresvelgr · · focus · HN ↗
adamnemecek · · focus · HN ↗
rolymath · · focus · HN ↗
Revolution is in the air.
ryan_n · · focus · HN ↗
rolymath · · focus · HN ↗
jonkoops · · focus · HN ↗
conartist6 · · focus · HN ↗
It's 25 years old, and the patch files that make up the core of the decentralized collaboration system are fully 50 years old. Have the design requirements and constraints perhaps changed over the last 50 years?
computerfriend · · focus · HN ↗
ryan_n · · focus · HN ↗
Based on what exactly? I think that git is more useful than ever in this new "age of ai [slop]".
Thankfully, something being old doesn't automatically make it not useful anymore.
conartist6 · · focus · HN ↗
1. Git breaks down if files are too large or lines within files are too large.
2. Add/Rename conflicts will always burn you because git does not protect the intent behind changes.
And really the third is that IDE's are shit because there's no document object model (like the browser has). You have to make an error recovering parser to try to deal with the fact that an IDE is editing code half the time and text half the time. You're stuck playing a game you can't possibly win. Can you imagine if the HTML DOM kept blinking into and out of existence? It'd be a nightmare...
thedevilslawyer · · focus · HN ↗
sporedro · · focus · HN ↗
If it’s targeted at working alongside git, and competing with the “local history” provided by like vscode, jetbrains and even vim where they track all saves to files it might serve a purpose?
The latter could be “useful” as an offline record. But the way they’re talking about sharing that, it feels like this is targeted at replacing git.