2 ms·

This is mostly talking about a different type of tooling and a different type of mastery. 'Tools' here might be something like 'immutable data structures', 'for

This is mostly talking about a different type of tooling and a different type of mastery. 'Tools' here might be something like 'immutable data structures', 'formal analysis of algorithms', 'linear algebra', 'debugging', 'usability studies', or 'project management', rather than some specific piece of software. The examples given (paxos and map-reduce) are very high level concepts, which open the door to products which would be impossible or qualitatively very different without them.

taeric 9y ago
To an extent, sure. But, I could replace "experience" with every usage of "tool" in the article and find that it makes more sense to me. When you lack experience building anything, it seems natural to think that the tools used by practitioners enable them to do what they do. After gaining experience, lots of it, you find that the tools can help build a scaffolding, but what you are really building can often be obscured by the scaffolding. Which is why it is not uncommon to see some experts that can work with minimal tooling. They have built their ability to see the product and end goal, without the need of some tooling. Which is not to say you can always get by without tooling. No amount of internalizing the instrument and idea of flying will help a pilot fly without a plane, after all.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  Again, the experts have a whole bag of conceptual tools to pull out and apply at moment's notice, collected and honed over a lifetime, which the novices don't even know exist. That's what makes them experts. In e.g. painting those tools might include knowledge of anatomy, lighting, human color vision, paint chemistry, composition, perspective, art history, specific stroke techniques, ..., plus time management, working with live models, managing client expectations, a collection of unused ideas to try, previsualization, judging and adjusting preliminary sketches, ..., none of which has anything to do with the specific canvas or brushes or subject. The expert will get better results from inferior paints and brushes and studio, because of all their other hidden tools. What seems from outside like 'minimal tooling' is actually a cornucopia of tools.
  - taeric 9y ago
    My assertion is still that this is a great nerd snipe. There are two aspects here. First, metaphorical tools are stretching the usefulness of the term tool to an extent. We already have a term for that, knowledge. It serves a different purpose than tooling. Specifically, tools act as great methods to let someone without the knowledge benefit from it. So, the standard library of most languages helps give tools to developers such that they don't have to know the details of the data structures. Just as paints let a painter not have to know the details of the pigments or other components of their supplies. Then there is the aspect that the knowledge doesn't necessarily translate to results. It is easy to see how many critics are far more knowledgeable of their fields than many of the practitioners. Yet, your average practitioner is probably accomplishing more than your average critic. I want to stress again, though, that it is not that tooling is unimportant. It is just an easy nerd snipe and is an easy way to divert from your actual task at hand and get very little accomplished.
    - jacobolus 9y ago
      If you prefer substitute 'principles, concepts, methods, and metacognitive skills' for 'tools'. Try not to get hung up on the precise labels. Factual knowledge is only a small part of what we are talking about here. The 'critics' have an entirely different toolset from 'practitioners'. Even their factual knowledge is of a different type, grounded in a different context, and not easily comparable. Likewise it doesn't make much sense to compare their 'accomplishments': criticism is its own valuable discipline with different goals.

taeric 9y ago

To an extent, sure. But, I could replace "experience" with every usage of "tool" in the article and find that it makes more sense to me. When you lack experience building anything, it seems natural to think that the tools used by practitioners enable them to do what they do. After gaining experience, lots of it, you find that the tools can help build a scaffolding, but what you are really building can often be obscured by the scaffolding. Which is why it is not uncommon to see some experts that can work with minimal tooling. They have built their ability to see the product and end goal, without the need of some tooling. Which is not to say you can always get by without tooling. No amount of internalizing the instrument and idea of flying will help a pilot fly without a plane, after all.

jacobolus 9y ago
Again, the experts have a whole bag of conceptual tools to pull out and apply at moment's notice, collected and honed over a lifetime, which the novices don't even know exist. That's what makes them experts. In e.g. painting those tools might include knowledge of anatomy, lighting, human color vision, paint chemistry, composition, perspective, art history, specific stroke techniques, ..., plus time management, working with live models, managing client expectations, a collection of unused ideas to try, previsualization, judging and adjusting preliminary sketches, ..., none of which has anything to do with the specific canvas or brushes or subject. The expert will get better results from inferior paints and brushes and studio, because of all their other hidden tools. What seems from outside like 'minimal tooling' is actually a cornucopia of tools.
- taeric 9y ago
  My assertion is still that this is a great nerd snipe. There are two aspects here. First, metaphorical tools are stretching the usefulness of the term tool to an extent. We already have a term for that, knowledge. It serves a different purpose than tooling. Specifically, tools act as great methods to let someone without the knowledge benefit from it. So, the standard library of most languages helps give tools to developers such that they don't have to know the details of the data structures. Just as paints let a painter not have to know the details of the pigments or other components of their supplies. Then there is the aspect that the knowledge doesn't necessarily translate to results. It is easy to see how many critics are far more knowledgeable of their fields than many of the practitioners. Yet, your average practitioner is probably accomplishing more than your average critic. I want to stress again, though, that it is not that tooling is unimportant. It is just an easy nerd snipe and is an easy way to divert from your actual task at hand and get very little accomplished.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    If you prefer substitute 'principles, concepts, methods, and metacognitive skills' for 'tools'. Try not to get hung up on the precise labels. Factual knowledge is only a small part of what we are talking about here. The 'critics' have an entirely different toolset from 'practitioners'. Even their factual knowledge is of a different type, grounded in a different context, and not easily comparable. Likewise it doesn't make much sense to compare their 'accomplishments': criticism is its own valuable discipline with different goals.