| ▲ | usrme 2 hours ago | |
By my count, this OpenAI post is the fifth major article on the topic of scaling, with the previous four being: - Cursor: https://cursor.com/blog/git-at-any-scale - GitHub: https://github.blog/engineering/architecture-optimization/bu... - Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com/research/redesigning-source-contro... - GitHub: https://github.blog/engineering/architecture-optimization/th... Maybe also tangentially East River Source Control's too: https://ersc.io/blog/what-comes-after-git. I'm wondering how much cross-pollination of ideas and subsequent implementation details there are between people working at these companies. It does seem like all of this could potentially converge. | ||
| ▲ | stingraycharles an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
Aren’t the concepts mostly already in place for a decade or two at Meta and Google? Which would support your argument, but I don’t think this is particularly new. | ||
| ▲ | zeroq an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Don't forget that Claude just got 3x faster by... using gzip! | ||
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
| [deleted] | ||
| ▲ | gritzko 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |
The blog post paints a vivid picture of a slop volcano. We speak of code its authors never read, never share, and never accept patches. So the entire point of git is moot. On the other hand, some lower-level tools have to be simple, reliable and efficient. Here, sharing is critical. Even the authors of the post shared some incremental improvements to git. Here, the slop-cannon-scalability story is moot. I think git is becoming a protocol. One product can no longer cover these cases. | ||