> defeatist attitude

This implies that the parent's sentiment about git is negative.

At least I personally feel very positively about git and am not missing much from it.

> This implies that the parent's sentiment about git is negative.

No, I meant defeatist as in "I have given up finding something better as it will never exist".

If the tool you have works well for your use case, looking for and learning to use a "better tool" can be a waste of your time with little benefit.

And that's how you can get stuck in a local maximum.

With the exception of very very singular people, isn't every maximum going to be local? Even then they'll be stuck in a bunch of other local maximum's outside their own area of expertise.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with my point.

I remember what was the go-to tool before git. It was Subversion. And CVS before that. I would not say people were happy with those tools.

I was happy with SVN because I used CVS before. I was even happy with CVS, because I had nothing before. It's hard to imagine now.

Software development has seen massive improvements in the past 20 years. I see no reason why that would stop now.

Asymptotes. Sometimes it turns out we can solve a particular problem so comprehensively that "solve this problem better" is never a reasonable step. You can try it anyway, of course, but you're unlikely to get acknowledgement much less praise.

The answer to "Why doesn't my music sound as good as I wanted?" isn't going to be "CD's 44.1kHz and 16-bit PCM isn't enough". It might be "This cable has been chewed by a dog" or "These speakers you got with a cheap MIDI system in your student dorm are garbage" or even "the earbuds you're wearing don't fit properly" but it won't be the 44.1kHz 16-bit PCM.

Likewise, it is plausible that Git is done technology-wise. That doesn't mean there won't be refirements to how it's used, recommended branching strategies, auto-complete, or even some low-level stuff like fixing the hash algorithm - but the core technology is done.

> The answer to "Why doesn't my music sound as good as I wanted?" isn't going to be "CD's 44.1kHz and 16-bit PCM isn't enough".

Yeah, try telling this to a fan of 1960s or 1970s rock. You'll get an earful about rich guitars and fat synths, which only a 100% analog, tube-amp process from studio to ear is capable of replicating.

> Yeah, try telling this to a fan of 1960s or 1970s rock. You'll get an earful about rich guitars and fat synths, which only a 100% analog, tube-amp process from studio to ear is capable of replicating.

And anyone with a basic understanding of electronics should laugh in the faces of these people. The idea that a signal can be carried on a wire or recorded on tape but can not be replicated digitally is absolute nonsense.

If someone wants to claim that their preferred format captures higher frequencies than 44.1kHz sampling allows for, that's at least plausible, but that can be solved by using higher sampling rates like 96 or 192 kHz. At that point you've exceeded the capabilities of all mainstream analog storage media.

If they are looking for specific effects created when pushing the limits of analog hardware, like the "crunch" of a tube amp, that's fine too, but they need to acknowledge that they're treating the amp as an instrument in that case and its output can still be recorded digitally just fine.

I was happy copying my files back in the days for versioning (final_draft, final_draft01, final_draft_absolute_final, final_draft_use_this_one), but that was because I didn't know of anything better. What I'm saying is that even though we don't see it now, there's probably something better out there waiting to be discovered.