zlacker

“why not just use jj?”

The most common reason is that the git user has no idea it exists. I am in this bucket alongside 99% of git users.

There are an assortment of other potential reasons:

- It is a new tool that hasn't been battle tested as much as git has, which can decrease confidence.

- Git has inertia. People have learned it, it takes less effort to add a new git skill to your repertoire than learn a new tool from scratch, even if the new tool is easy to pick up.

- Due to its novelty, the auxiliary tooling ecosystem for jj is smaller (does it have plugins for all the popular editors? Lots of people like those, git's are high quality)

- Git is good enough. It's not perfect, but its popularity means that its shortcomings have readily available fixes or tweaks from users. It simply isn't bad enough and there are bountiful resources on how to use it effectively.

>>Radioz+(OP)
I think a core reason (besides not knowing jj exists), is the framing that there is a choice that has to be made, or a switch that has to occur. It is, instead, additive. I have Sublime Merge (GUI git client) and jj both looking at my git repo all day. Zed's git stuff is watching it too.

jj is sort of a bag of git tricks for me that I use when needed. It's no different than some things being easier with the git CLI vs others being easier in Sublime. I'll be at a stage where my committing/branching/rearranging wants are something that jj nails perfectly, and I do those there. As far at the other tools are concerned, I just did a bunch of sophisticated git operations.

The "colocated with git" capability of jj is probably it's most amazing feature tbh, and is key to any sort of adoption.