The social inertia point is an interesting one. It seems like in some areas, like JavaScript frameworks, there is a ton of inertia for change; in other areas, like git, there is a ton of inertia for stasis. Why is that?
Writing the umpteenth Javascript framework might be good for your career. It isn't hard, in fact, it is so easy a multitude of javascript-only developers attempt it on a regular basis.
Occasionally one takes off. Really just a function of how many friends the author has, their stature in "the community" and/or their aptitude for creating cute marketable landing pages.
There is a multitude of people capable of jumping in with hot takes explaining why the new framework is superior/inferior, tweets, blog posts, courses, books and conferences abound..
In contrast re-inventing git is hard. Few people can wax poetic about the differences between alternatives. Even fewer can come up with a new one. The audience is far smaller not to mention skeptical. Less profit in it.
Rather the difference between a new age cult/mega-church and the Catholic church.
I honestly don't know. For some reason, with JS frameworks, everyone seems to agree that improving ergonomics is a good thing. New methods are added, old ones are tweaked, constantly improving the developer experience.
But with Git, every conversation about improving the CLI has 50% of the participants claiming that the other 50% are just too stupid to use it, and that the CLI is brilliant.
