What comes after Git?
Anyone who&#x27;s ever used Darcs [1] knows that you can do a lot better than Git! So does anyone who&#x27;s ever used Mercurial, for that matter.<p>Darcs failed to reach mass adoption, and lost against Git back in the mid-2000s, which for me, at the time, felt like a big step backwards (and in other ways a step forward, since Darcs had some icky bugs and performance issues). Some 15 years later it&#x27;s amazing that we are still stuck with Git.<p>What makes Darcs different is that it does not need to organize history sequentially. It knows what commits depend on other commits, and a branch is simply a &quot;sea of patches&quot; whose order is inferred. This means that you can share commits across branches without conflicts (unless the branches actually conflict, of course). Darcs&#x27; equivalent to &quot;git cherry-pick&quot; simply pulls along with it any commits that your cherry-pick depend on.<p>Darcs had flaws that prevented it from succeeding, and the fact that it was written in Haskell didn&#x27;t help attracting developers. Darcs&#x27; philosophy lives on in Pijul, which also looks promising, but unfortunately seems doomed to the same fate of remaining a niche tool. Git ate the world thanks to GitHub, and the next VCS needs a similar kind of killer app that justifies the switch.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Darcs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Darcs</a>