It took me quite a while to get used to the "save continuously, keep revision history" of Google Docs, but in that context I've gotten used to it. For something like code, or image edits, etc. I still prefer explicit "Save" or "Save As..." operations that I control, because quite often I get myself boxed into something that I just want to throw away and start over.

▲

milch 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I've had my code editor's configuration set to auto save for at least 15 years at this point. I've never had the problem of not being able to throw something away that I wanted to throw away - either it's in the git history (broad edits), or it's in the undo-history (fine edits). It helps to have an undo history that survives restarts and that preserves branches, which I guess may not be a default for every editor

▲

two_handfuls 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You might like "save continously but call it 'history', offer a save button but that just names the current revision"

This lets you throw away and start over, but also gives you infinite undo even after "loading" an older version.

	▲	brabel 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In IntelliJ you can look at local history of a file and see that the ide remembers your changes for a long time. It seems to take a snapshot on actions like test runs, build complete, or maybe every few minutes. This is on top of auto saving and git of course. It saved my ass when I ran the wrong git command more than once!
	▲	MetaWhirledPeas 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		For me this is what I use Git for, even if I have no intention of pushing to a remote repository. So I suppose some of Git's functionality could be considered redundant if only the applications would be generous about saving history and deltas.

▲

gtowey 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

We could have both. The "save" button just becomes a pointer to a specific point in the revision history, the same way we already have that with git.