[jdietrich]

The key difference is that, unlike text editors, version control systems have substantial network effects.

The popularity of GitHub has made using Git a bit of a no-brainer, in the literal sense - a lot of Git users never really thought about the decision, they just needed some code from a Git repo and picked up Git along the way. I just don't see where people would be having the same experience with Mercurial. I've picked up several books recently where Git was taught in the first few chapters as a necessary precursor.

It appears to me that Git is the new SVN, the new version control tool that we're just stuck with whether we like it or not. I can think of much worse things.

[gcp]

The key difference is that, unlike text editors, version control systems have substantial network effects.

That's not entirely true, in the sense that popular editors tend to have more extensions, syntax highlighting for more languages, auto-completion, etc... That helps draw in more users.

I just don't see where people would be having the same experience with Mercurial.

Well, there's bitbucket. IIRC some programming language communities have standardized on even more off-mainstream VCS.

But yeah, on the whole Git got an advantage in users somewhere along the way, and that's now self-reinforcing. It helps that there's no competition that's obviously better.

[bostonvaulter2]

But if a project is using git, you don't have much choice but to use git as well (of course there are some bridges, but I don't think they work 100%)