Why have so many people written long thoughtful explanations about how the author is wrong to suggest snapshots are a better mental model, and that you think all abstractions are leaky, but you find diffs a better mental model?
The entire article is literally about how commits are literally snapshots. I would say people didn't read TFA, but a lot of people are quoting lines from TFA and then going on to argue with/expand on them in a way that is directly contradicted by the next few lines.
I think it's because most of the people here have spent years working with git, and are so deeply attached to their understanding that they didn't hear most of what the article said.
(Some commentators have pointed out specific oversimplifications the author makes like glossing over pack files, I'm referring to the people who say a git blob is a diff when the entire point of TFA is that it isn't)
The entire article is literally about how commits are literally snapshots. I would say people didn't read TFA, but a lot of people are quoting lines from TFA and then going on to argue with/expand on them in a way that is directly contradicted by the next few lines.
I think it's because most of the people here have spent years working with git, and are so deeply attached to their understanding that they didn't hear most of what the article said.
(Some commentators have pointed out specific oversimplifications the author makes like glossing over pack files, I'm referring to the people who say a git blob is a diff when the entire point of TFA is that it isn't)