[ltbarcly3]

git is the superior technology. If you weren't around back in the day, one of the big problems with version control was how SLOW it was. Changing branches on a moderate sized codebase in SVN took a long time, and SVN was considered quite fast. When we finally got git we couldn't believe it actually did something. Like you would change branches and it would instantly return, and you would scratch your head and double check that the files were different? It was the difference between 30s of your CPU grinding and 45ms. This was so completely frustrating that long before git became dominant we were all using git-svn so at least we wouldn't be forced to use SVN locally, because it was horrible. Darcs was 1000x worse than that.

Darcs was never good enough, not even close. It wasn't even good. It fundamentally failed at the most basic thing required of version control, that you can actually use it to get work done, because it became so slow with even small codebases that you had to give up and switch to SVN. You could have a codebase with 200k lines of code and basic operations would take 30 MINUTES or longer. (not to mention that darcs would lose data, and you could get in situations where conflict resolution was impossible and you would just be stuck and forced to manually fix things outside of VC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcs#Shortcomings

Darcs was and still is unusable and inferior.

[beachy]

1000x is a bit hyperbolic but I'll admit I had forgotten the purgatory of slow version control. You are correct about that.

[dan-robertson]

Darcs has exponential time merges so there is definitely potential for getting in very slow situations.