Not being a hater, just differentiating between "new" and "improved".
I appreciate that sentiment a lot. I find I'm often in the camp that
considers new things not necessarily improved.
But you are definitely going against the tide here. Git *is* better
than mod marks, in an analogous way that new cars are better than old
cars. Problems with new cars: You can't work on them as much, because
they are so much more complicated, and so much is computerized;
so-called "bumpers" are flimsy things that deform at the slightest
touch and can't even survive "bumps" unscathed. The list of things I
miss about old cars is actually pretty long. But the performance and
safety and reliability and efficiency of new cars are all off the
charts compared to old cars.
The mod marks thing is not scalable. If you truly have a policy of
never deleting anything, just commenting it out, then the policy is
*absolutely* a direct affront against readability and maintainability.
That policy is actively making the code worse.
I'll commiserate with anyone about how "phones" these days are not as
good for having a voice conversation with another person far away as
the old telephones I grew up with. But mod marks, no thanks. Even for
forensics, I'm in the diff-based camp.
John Y.
midrange.com
