| > (1) we found (contrary to popular belief) that OT actually does not require a centralized server In theory, yes, but in practice, any OT that operates without a central server (or master peer) essentially ends up being a CRDT. A CRDT is a subset of OT, specifically one that adds the requirement of P2P support. > (2) we found it to be harder to implement OT exactly right vs CRDTs I would say that each has its own complexity in different areas. CRDT's complexity lies in its data structure and algorithm, while OT's lies in its sync engine (since it must handle race conditions and guarantee deterministic ordering). In my opinion, OT is simpler overall. Hopefully DocNode and DocSync will make OT even easier. > (3) we found many (though not all) of the problems that CRDTs have, are also problems in practice for OT Oh, definitely not! OT has many benefits[1]. I think the misconception stems from the common belief that OT should be positional, rather than id-based. In the first case, operations are transformed on other operations. In the second case, operations can also be transformed on the current document (O(1)), eliminating the problems commonly associated with OT. This is the approach I use in DocNode. > the problems CRDTs have in general are vastly worse to the end-user experience. This is 100% correct. ____ https://www.docukit.dev/docnode#how-does-it-compare-to-yjs |