alt Hacker NewsI agree that not every app needs it's own sync engine, but I disagree with your framing that the file system is the universal way to embrace local first. I have two reasons.
First is that yeah, local first, but I also want concurrency. If it's just local first, you're right, any old sync will do. But I want more than that. I want to not have to think (a la dropbox, being slick). I want my wife and I to be able to make separate edits on our phones when we're in a dead zone.
Second is that sync works a lot better when it has deep knowledge of the data structure and semantics. Git and box both have significant shortcomings, but both exacerbated by the concurrency desire.
Replies
If the app is designed for it you can use a hybrid approach, where a given "document" is stored in 1 file for each client, and the client merges the changes across all files. That way there's never a change conflict that something like Dropbox needs to handle and it can all be offloaded to the app.
But this problem isn't going to be solved by every app making its own sync system. Even if there is a magic library you can adopt that does pretty good, then everyone having their own completely independent hosting solution and sync schedule.
If files are insufficient, what data-structure would make modular sync possible for multiple applications in an OS?
And I’m not suggesting one doesn’t exist, I’m challenging to present a comprehensive solution, that probably involved operating systems.
> I want my wife and I to be able to make separate edits on our phones when we're in a dead zone.
Files do this.