450
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
450 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
23281 readers
273 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't think it's hyperbole to say a significant percentage of Git activity happens on GitHub (and other "foundries") โ which are themselves a far cry from efficient.
My ultimate takeaway on the topic is that we're stuck with Git's very counterintuitive porcelain, and only satisfactory plumbing, regardless of performance/efficiency; but if Mercurial had won out, we'd still have its better interface (and IMO workflow), and any performance problems could've been addressed by a rewrite in C (or the Rust one that is so very slowly happening).
Imagine if their VCS operations were 10s of times less efficient ๐
Anti Commercial-AI license
Most of the VCS ops in Hg are actually written in C.
GitHub is mostly written in Ruby, so that's not really a performance win.
Like I said, we're stuck with Git's UX, but we were never stuck with Hg's performance.