Inheritance of purity

foobar foo at
Sun Feb 26 00:57:52 PST 2012

On Sunday, 26 February 2012 at 01:18:55 UTC, James Miller wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2012 8:53 AM, "foobar" <foo at> 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.

I see the analogy went over your head. Besides, what's wrong with 
a lighter that only works in Europe? Works perfectly fine for me! 

>> 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

The picture is both a simple fact of life and in our current 
discussion a response to the above attitude of "lowest common 
denominator". I'm suggesting that progress is made by progressing 
forward and not by retreating backwards.
Your agitated response suggests I hit a nerve. That's a sign that 
my post had an effect.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list