I think the original statement is defensible. Many of the original OT papers proposed algorithms that have since been shown not to converge in particular cases (especially the TP2 puzzle). It took a while for the fog to clear, in part because TP2 requires concurrent edits from 3 peers.
I also highly recommend the talk "CRDTs and the Quest for Distributed Consistency"[0] from Martin Kleppmann, which I believe surveys the landscape in as clear and accessible a manner as I've seen; much of the literature is pretty dense.
Maybe I should have phrased it better. OT was first introduced a long time ago, a quick search on Google Scholar and you will find papers from the 90s. Since then the algorithm has evolved and improved. I did not say it was better. I think CRDTs are easier to understand, but that's my opinion :)
Re:Creating a Collaborative Editor
by AnthonBerg on Friday June 14, 2019 @07:42AM
(#20182144)
That’s a great paper! Recommended if only for how much fun it is :)
(Maybe that’s just me of course :) Only one way to find out ...)
Source or explanation required.
Also, this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01302
I guess that you can argue for both sides :). But they are just different solutions. Basing on my experience and on what I read it is simply unfair saying that one is incorrect and other is correct (or one is better and the other is worse).