9 votes

I was wrong. CRDTs are the future

5 comments

  1. [2]
    skybrian
    Link
    Background: this article about two different algorithms for collaborative realtime editing (like Google Docs). OT stands for Operational Transform, which is simpler but centralized and CRDT stands...

    Background: this article about two different algorithms for collaborative realtime editing (like Google Docs). OT stands for Operational Transform, which is simpler but centralized and CRDT stands for Conflict-free Replicated Datatype, which is more distributed.

    The idea with these algorithms is to do automated merges, unlike git where merges are manual in the case of conflicts. The result may not always be what you expect, but the idea is that if you are editing a document in real-time then you'll see the change that the other person made as it happens and fix it. Usually. In the case of offline editing, maybe not?

    I am a bit skeptical that this sort of thing can be both truly distributed (including offline edits) and automatic since that means automatically merging very old edits and the document may have changed a lot since then. It seems like you'd want a person looking at the edit to make sure it's still relevant?

    5 votes
    1. xstresedg
      Link Parent
      Neither OT or CRDT are perfect solutions, unless you don't mind a large computational wait between updates and storage (for CRDT). I'm watching the video referenced in the article, but those seem...

      Neither OT or CRDT are perfect solutions, unless you don't mind a large computational wait between updates and storage (for CRDT). I'm watching the video referenced in the article, but those seem to be the biggest hurdles. You want an accurate document, then you need to wait and have extra storage to store both copies of the changes for the algorithm to make an accurate document (for CRDT).

      At least from what I understand so far. I'm not done the video yet, and then I'll be rereading the article after.

      1 vote
  2. [3]
    vord
    Link
    I know this wasn't the focus, but Wave was amazing and I was sad to see it go. It was ahead of it's time, and would have obviated the need for so many other collaborative tools. Problem was in...

    I know this wasn't the focus, but Wave was amazing and I was sad to see it go. It was ahead of it's time, and would have obviated the need for so many other collaborative tools.

    Problem was in part due to needing adoption from the business crowds that still struggle with basic email to this day.

    2 votes
    1. [2]
      skybrian
      Link Parent
      I joined a team that really liked it, but I found it rather messy and confusing, and we lost a lot of notes when it shut down.

      I joined a team that really liked it, but I found it rather messy and confusing, and we lost a lot of notes when it shut down.

      1 vote
      1. vord
        Link Parent
        Definitely. It was rough around the edges, but IMO not irredeemably so.

        Definitely. It was rough around the edges, but IMO not irredeemably so.

        1 vote