(I've also had to work with various IBM CVS, and they are universally garbage. When I get frustrated at git, all I have to do is think back to those.)
So yes, Mercurial is better, but is it worth the effort? Not in my experience.
That being said, I use git daily and find that I'm able to do everything I want and more, so I'm not looking to make a switch. Unfortunately, most people don't care to learn how to use git beyond "checkout, commit, push, call for help".
I forget all the reasons why RTC isn't great, but the main one: if the server goes down, you're screwed. This happened several times, and we basically went to the pub instead of working. Slow to check out. Streams sucked compared to branches (especially when the server admin restricted creation of streams, meaning you simply could not branch at all if I'm remembering), and the capability to stash changes/switch branches to work on different work items if one was blocked was also more cumbersome. Code review was terrible.
A centralised paradigm does simplify things a lot mentally, but the workflow suffers IMO.
I guess you can pull a branch or email a patch and diff it with the diff tool of your choice.
There's a few options for gir review UIs, e.g. Gerrit or GitLab. Kind of unix-y, just have the VCS be a good VCS.
> a constructive proof is a method of proof that demonstrates the existence of a mathematical object by creating [...] the object.
> This is in contrast to [an existence proof], which proves the existence of a particular kind of object without providing an example.
Things could be better. There's an existence proof. It just lost the mindshare war and so now we're stuck with Git, which I still have to look up basic syntax for because its command set is contradictory and makes no sense. (Is it git <x>? git <y> --x? git <z> <a-b>? Something else entirely? Who knows!)