[kowey]

Hi, I'm very sorry about your bad experience with Darcs, and am happy that Git is working out for you. I very much admire the Git infrastructure and hope that someday Darcs can catch up or even slowly worm its way into Git again. We tend to recommend it for smaller teams and personal projects these days.

Darcs got too popular too early and was hurt for it (although then again, its relative popularity at the time was also a good way for us to ferret out issues). We've now shrunk back to a more reasonable size (which makes it a bit harder to keep going, but takes off some of the pressure too, double-edged)

[jwr]

Don't be sorry — I didn't pay any money for it and it was my decision :-)

I think darcs suffered because it set high expectations. I remember being fascinated with the "theory of patches". The web site looked very promising. And it was written in Haskell, so it had to be correct, right? :-)

I liked the simplicity of the command-line interface of darcs. I just never looked around for 1M+ LOC projects using it on a daily basis. I should have been more careful.

I still use darcs for a number of small things and I'm happy with it. I'm happier with Git, mostly because of its practical approach and the freedom it offers ("text is just text" and "you own your history, do whatever you want to it").