Inheritance of purity

[James Miller]

On Feb 26, 2012 8:53 AM, "foobar" <foo at bar.com> wrote:
>
> That's analogous to saying that you don't want to depend on a lighter
since you can make your own fire by rubbing a stone with a wood stick. A
lighter does tie you to a certain technology but loosing the lighter
doesn't make for more productivity. Misuse of the tool or using the wrong
one sure could hamper productivity but that's hardly the fault of
technology.
>
No, its analogous to not using a lighter that only lights evergreens, and
only works in Europe. Again, this is blatantly the view that there there is
either notepad or vs, ignoring the masses of features of the editors in
between. I've used vs, I don't find it to have many features - that I use -
that vim doesn't.

> The above regarding MS is incorrect. MS has lots of automation and is far
better at it than *nix systems are. Its Powershell is superior to the *nix
"everything is a file" ideology and there were several attempts to copy the
concept to *nix with Python and Ruby.

Im not even sure what you're getting at here, I didn't realise powershell
had an ideology, I don't think bash does either. And sure powershell, a
nonstandard add-on, is good. Try automating something that wasn't made by
microsoft though, try doing administration of it remotely without rdp.
>
>>
>> Programming a craft as much as it is a process. I tend to liken it to
>> carpentry, you have set steps, you design and plan and build etc, but
>> there's creativity there. As such, programmers (I've found) tend to
>> pick an environment that suits them best. I use a minimal system that
>> I can configure and hack to my heart's content. My colleague uses a
>> Macbook pro that he never shuts down. The designer here uses a Macbook
>> Air. And we all work fine, there is no "One True Way" to make a chair,
>> why should there be one for writing a program?
>>
>> My point is that the tools that programmers use, like compilers and
>> linkers and parser-generators and build systems and deployment tools
>> and source control and x and y and z and .... are going to be used by
>> a wide range of people, in a wide range of environments, for a wide
>> range of purposes, so they should keep in mind that maybe you /don't/
>> have a certain tool or feature available. So you make sure that the
>> experience at the lowest common denominator, a vt100 terminal, is
>> acceptable, maybe not perfect, but good enough, then you build from
>> there. If that means that D is geared towards less typing, then good,
>> especially if  you can do the extra typing and not break things. It
>> /is/ possible to make everybody mostly happy, and that is by aiming at
>> the people using `cat`* to program and hitting the people using VS
>> along the way.
>>
>> * Programming using `cat` is not recommended.**
>> ** Even though /real/ programmers use `cat`
>>
>> --
>> James Miller
>
>
> I disagree. Simply put:
>
> +---------+         +---------+
> | Magic   |         | comfort |
> | happens |         |  zone   |
> | here!   |         +---------+
> +---------+
>
> Magic cannot happen here ^.

What on earth does this mean? In the context it seems to suggest that I
should be struggling to learn a new environment if I want to do something
amazing.

I'm guessing you meant that I should try something new, but that doesn't
need to be the editor. It's far more interesting to try to build outside of
my "comfort zone".

In fact, your grade-school platitude annoys me, it suggests that I'm stuck
in my ways and avoiding new tech because I like my terminal. I started in
IDEs, and worked my way down. I also have the most fun working outside my
comfort zone and doing something new, spending hours looking at code going
"why wont you work! Why do you hate me!" Then finally getting a
breakthrough... amazing.

--
James Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120226/53a6c54d/attachment.html>