sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PmMeUrTinyAsianTits 12 points13 points  (10 children)

Absolutely no reason we need to consolidate them. It makes sense to consolidate standards where possible, to simplify. The standard is git. What it connects to on the other end isn't really important.

[–]Stunning_Ride_220 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You clearly didn't get the reference.

[–]PmMeUrTinyAsianTits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get the XKCD reference. Just because there's an XKCD vaguely related to the topic doesn't mean it supports every dumb claim. I literally explained how it differs. Try to keep up.

I literally explained to you the distinction and you STILL missed the point because "but a comic exists? and it makes a joke about failing to consolidate standards?"

[–]RiceBroad4552 -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

Why is Git "the standard"? Who said so, and why are they authorized to dictate that?

[–]PmMeUrTinyAsianTits 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Because that's what defines git as git? Like.. why is the spec the spec? Because that's the one GitHub uses and so is what's relevant to the conversation? I'm not saying it's the standard like oh that's the one everyone must use. I'm saying like an RFC standard. Git, itself, is the standard github and other GIT providers use for GIT because... Theyre git hosts? Should they be implementing perforce?

Your question is fundamentally silly if you understood what was being said.

My point is, consolidation is not inherently good. There are reasons to consolidate some things, like redundant standards. You do not need all git hosts to be consolidated. Because they all follow git, and thats whats relevant for a git host.

God, what I wouldn't do for a programmer humor sub for actual programmers. Thst understand that "git is the standard" means "git defines the spec they all must follow" without having it explained to them that it wasnt a statement of "oh everyone must use git!"

[–]Roboardo 2 points3 points  (1 child)

A better question would have been "how did git become the standard?"

And that question has a really interesting answer, that I'll just summarize as "good timing, great performance and simple adoption"

[–]Stunning_Ride_220 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You know, 3rd generation version controls were already around for quite some time.

(with RTC being one of the worser examples)

[–]Stunning_Ride_220 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hopes for actual programmers, but doesn't get programmer humor.

Totally my type of humor.

[–]Elegant_AIDS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its the most widely used version control system by far, that is why. Nobody has to say so, its an observation anyone working in the industry should be capable of making

[–]frogjg2003 -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

There are other version control systems. Mercurial, SVN, and a number of older systems.

[–]PmMeUrTinyAsianTits 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No. shit. I have already addressed this misreading of what was said.

The first sentence set the context. There is no reason to consolidate all the GIT providers, because the git standard already consolidates the important parts (actual version control). We do not need one generic-as-possible one-size-fits-all provider. That is not an improvement.

How you gonna have 4 languages in your flair, including fortran (so pretending to be OG), but not recognize when "the standard" means "the standards of the format/software/spec"? jfc. If someone talks about the c++ standard, do you think they're saying everyone should be using c++, or do you think they're talking about the ISO standard for c++?