←back to thread

Dolt is Git for data

(www.dolthub.com)
358 points timsehn | 3 comments | 30 Mar 20 20:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.011s | source
Show context
peteforde ◴[31 Mar 20 03:02 UTC] No.22734564[source]▶
Only 39 days since the last "GitHub for data" was announced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22375774

I'll say what I said in February: I started a company with the same premise 9 years ago, during the prime "big data" hype cycle. We burned through a lot of investor money only to realize that there was not a market opportunity to capture. That is, many people thought it was cool - we even did co-sponsored data contests with The Economist - but at the end of the day, we couldn't find anyone with an urgent problem that they were willing to pay to solve.

I wish these folks luck! Perhaps things have changed; we were part of a flock of 5 or 10 similar projects and I'm pretty sure the only one still around today is Kaggle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWMjQhhxhQ4

replies(15): >>22734677 #>>22734738 #>>22734742 #>>22734839 #>>22735019 #>>22735030 #>>22735213 #>>22735358 #>>22735661 #>>22736049 #>>22736513 #>>22736785 #>>22737514 #>>22737860 #>>22738642 #
philipov ◴[31 Mar 20 04:02 UTC] No.22734839[source]▶
Git succeeded because it was free, and then business models were able to be built up around the open-source ecosystem after a market evolved naturally. There is a need, but if you go into it trying to build a business from scratch, you're going to have a bad time.
replies(2): >>22735082 #>>22735219 #
TylerE ◴[31 Mar 20 05:12 UTC] No.22735082[source]▶
Git succeeded because of Linus.

Sure as hell wasn't because of the UX, else Mercurial would have won, or even DARCS.

99.99999% of projects are not the Linux kernel

replies(7): >>22735432 #>>22735442 #>>22735596 #>>22735880 #>>22736021 #>>22736399 #>>22737152 #
1. stevekemp ◴[31 Mar 20 08:46 UTC] No.22735880{3}[source]▶
DARCS would not have seen significant further growth, due to the merge-of-doom problem.
replies(1): >>22737441 #
2. Tomte ◴[31 Mar 20 13:43 UTC] No.22737441[source]▶
It's been years since I have read about darcs. Did they fix that infinite time merge problem at some point?
replies(1): >>22739259 #
3. stevekemp ◴[31 Mar 20 16:29 UTC] No.22739259[source]▶
Not entirely fixed by the look of things:

Darcs 2 (introduced in 2008-04) reduces the name of scenarios that will trigger an exponential merge. Repositories created with Darcs 2 should have fewer exponential merges in practice.

http://darcs.net/FAQ/Performance#is-the-exponential-merge-pr...