Probably. And neither Python Packaging nor regular expressions will be replaced by anything in the next few decades, for the same reasons why `jj` is unlikly to replace git, for the same reason why rust won't replace C, and the same reason why, 20 years from now, people will still have jobs fixing Java and PHP code.
> But it seems like bad engineering and a lack of curiosity to look at the quirks in a tool and not ask if we can do better.
No one is demanding that we stop asking. But as engineers we cannot just consider "better", we also have to consider "practical". And in practical, pragmatic considerations, "technically better" simply isn't enough to displace an entrenched tool. That is a fact, whether people like that or not.
I like the ideas of jj. I cheer the development. Will I replace my git with jj in the forseeable future? No. Why? Because pragmatic reasons.
To replace an entranched tool that does its job and has wide adoption, a new thing needs to offer absolutely astonishing advantages that become "must-have" just by the merit of their existence. And even then, the ROI of these advantages have to offset all the technical and logistic pain of switching from one to the other.
> but the UI of Git (i.e. all the commands and surrounding paraphernalia) has a lot of incidental complexity.
There is no shortage of wrappers around git abstracting the nitty gritty to nearly any level of complexity desired. I use vim-fugitive for example. GUI abstractions as well as CLI tools and TUI wrappers exist.
10% better isn't. 10x better is. Jujutsu is 10x better.
10x is an arithmetic operation. Therefore, to make such an assumption, there has to be a quantity that operation can be applied to.
So, by what quantifieable metric is jj "10x better" than git?
For me, the important metric here is the intersection of two things: number of concepts, and power. I moved from svn to git relatively early in Git’s life; I started using GitHub in 2008. I’ve loved git for a long time.
jj has the ability to do everything git can, but has fewer primitives that are factored better. This means it is easier to use, while still retaining the ability to do anything.
I don’t know if that’s 10x, but it’s good enough for me that I’m never using git again.
And I'll happily repeat: By what metric is it "better"? So far, I have heard your opinion, not metrics.
You're right that all tools have their quirks — jj is surely no exception. But it seems like bad engineering and a lack of curiosity to look at the quirks in a tool and not ask if we can do better. How much of a tool's difficulty represents the underlying complexity of the problem it's solving, and how much is just incidental complexity from the tool itself?
In this case, I think the core of Git (the underlying model of commits and refs and objects) does a really good job of being exactly what's necessary and no more, but the UI of Git (i.e. all the commands and surrounding paraphernalia) has a lot of incidental complexity. That is, there are simpler and cleaner ways to represent a lot of the stuff that's happening in Git. This, I think, is why a lot of people struggle with Git — not just because version control is hard (although it is), but because Git as a tool is additionally hard on top of that. And I think it's reasonable to look for better ways of doing version control that don't have as much incidental complexity.