> Will we see another DVCS ever again? I hope yes.
As just the first example off the top of my head, Pijul [1] is "new" compared to the others you listed. There will likely always be folks exploring alternatives.
> Now all software developers with less than 5 years of experience are using Google and GitHub as the user interface for Git. Git's cognitive burden is terrible and can be solved. However Git authors themselves are not priorising this.
I have the opposite impression, that the Git Team is finally getting serious about the UX, whether its just all the fresh blood (thanks at least partly to Microsoft moving some of their UX teams off of proprietary VCSes to converge on git), or that Git's internals are now stable enough that the Git team feels it is time to focus on UX (as that was always a stated goal that they'd return to UX when all the important stuff was done).
Clear example: The biggest and first announcement in the most recent Git release notes was about the split of `git checkout` into `git switch` and `git restore`. That's a huge UX change intended to make a lot of people's lives easier, simplifying what is often people's most common, but most sometimes most conceptually confusing git command given the variety of things that `git checkout` does.
The Git UX is better today than it was when it first "beat" Mercurial in the marketplace, and there seems to be at least some interests among git contributors to make it better.
As just the first example off the top of my head, Pijul [1] is "new" compared to the others you listed. There will likely always be folks exploring alternatives.
> Now all software developers with less than 5 years of experience are using Google and GitHub as the user interface for Git. Git's cognitive burden is terrible and can be solved. However Git authors themselves are not priorising this.
I have the opposite impression, that the Git Team is finally getting serious about the UX, whether its just all the fresh blood (thanks at least partly to Microsoft moving some of their UX teams off of proprietary VCSes to converge on git), or that Git's internals are now stable enough that the Git team feels it is time to focus on UX (as that was always a stated goal that they'd return to UX when all the important stuff was done).
Clear example: The biggest and first announcement in the most recent Git release notes was about the split of `git checkout` into `git switch` and `git restore`. That's a huge UX change intended to make a lot of people's lives easier, simplifying what is often people's most common, but most sometimes most conceptually confusing git command given the variety of things that `git checkout` does.
The Git UX is better today than it was when it first "beat" Mercurial in the marketplace, and there seems to be at least some interests among git contributors to make it better.
[1] https://pijul.org/