3 ms·

That's an incredibly naive filter. I'd estimate the vast majority of developers don't care too much about whether their technology stack fits some arbitrary ide

That's an incredibly naive filter. I'd estimate the vast majority of developers don't care too much about whether their technology stack fits some arbitrary ideal. A good interviewer would focus on gleaming out a person's understanding of the fundamentals, and more important, actual instances of problem-solving, creativity, and learning. > I'd be very concerned that he was just a glue monkey assembling bits & bobs of proprietary software and not an actual developer. You can remove the word proprietary and apply that claim to a significant number of developers, regardless of their chosen tech stack. > Free software is better for developers Citation needed.

zeveb 11y ago
> > Free software is better for developers > Citation needed. How about Joel Spolksy[1]? Any Windows developer will tell you about the time they spent four days tracking down a bug because, say, they thought that the memory size returned by LocalSize would be the same as the memory size they originally requested with LocalAlloc, or some similar bug they could have fixed in ten minutes if they could see the source code of the library. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Biculturalism.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Biculturalism.html
- eropple 11y ago
  And on the flip side, I've had potentially hours of source dives (because, spoiler alert, I have the .NET Framework source code on hand and have for a couple years now) made unnecessary because the MSDN documentation, which was made because they would like programmers to be productive, explained an edge case before I stepped on that rake. Compare to plenty of other environments where the source dive was the only option because the documentation was an atrocity. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as you want it to be and you will be better at your job when you internalize that environments you don't like have pluses of their own. I choose to use Unix for my own projects because it makes sense for the projects I'm working on (the stray game-development project aside), but I have declined to participate in the epistemic closure of those who think Windows and .NET have nothing to offer or to teach.

zeveb 11y ago

> > Free software is better for developers > Citation needed. How about Joel Spolksy[1]? Any Windows developer will tell you about the time they spent four days tracking down a bug because, say, they thought that the memory size returned by LocalSize would be the same as the memory size they originally requested with LocalAlloc, or some similar bug they could have fixed in ten minutes if they could see the source code of the library. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Biculturalism.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Biculturalism.html

eropple 11y ago
And on the flip side, I've had potentially hours of source dives (because, spoiler alert, I have the .NET Framework source code on hand and have for a couple years now) made unnecessary because the MSDN documentation, which was made because they would like programmers to be productive, explained an edge case before I stepped on that rake. Compare to plenty of other environments where the source dive was the only option because the documentation was an atrocity. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as you want it to be and you will be better at your job when you internalize that environments you don't like have pluses of their own. I choose to use Unix for my own projects because it makes sense for the projects I'm working on (the stray game-development project aside), but I have declined to participate in the epistemic closure of those who think Windows and .NET have nothing to offer or to teach.