On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Coppin <andrewcop...@btinternet.com>wrote:
> I'm sure this must be a VFAQ, but... There seems to be universal agreement > that Darcs is a nice idea, but is unsuitable for "real" projects. Even GHC > keeps talking about getting rid of Darcs. Can anybody tell me what the > "problems" with Darcs actually are? > It's been documented in the GHC discussions, on reddit, and elsewhere. I would encourage you to look at the darcs-users mailing list archives and the ghc archives. My personal summary is as follows: * There is religion/fan-boy-ism around git and in general vcs is subject to network effects. * Github enables a level of collaboration that is hard to get with darcs. Some people say this as: Github is the best thing about git. * Performance concerns (for example, darcs annotate needs too much time/memory). * Conflict merging issues (patch theory has flaws that lead to exponential time merges). Darcs has some additional flaws that people complain about, but which I don't think are core to the issue: * Conflict markers are hard to understand * patches as a set instead of linear history (patch soup complaints) * It's written in Haskell * It's not popular enough * People say they just don't get patch theory I hope that helps, Jason
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
