6 ms·
That's your reply? Your keyboard is too limited? Your made in China, costs about 1/1000th of an annual programmer salary, trivially replacable hunk of plastic K
by RyanT 16y ago
That's your reply? Your keyboard is too limited? Your made in China, costs about 1/1000th of an annual programmer salary, trivially replacable hunk of plastic KEYBOARD is your rationale for waving goodbye to the potential productivity benefits of new glyphs? Amazing.
Yes, if only developers could devise some way of remapping keyboard keys, affixing new labels or even creating entirely new alternative layouts and devices. But that sort of rocket science is at least, what, three decades out?
- jerf 16y agoTwo problems with your post, not counting your tone: Your reading comprehension fails, I already mentioned I know how to remap keys. In fact what happens when you type on my keyboard bears only a passing resemblance to what is on the keycaps. Second, what "productivity benefits"? Are you such an astonishing programmer than your primary bottleneck is typing your symbols? It's too slow to type -> instead of Alt-Gr->, or whatever? Or maybe the agony of having to read -> instead of →? I find it hard to believe that's much more than a rounding error.
- thomasz 16y ago> Second, what "productivity benefits"? I guess that mathematical notation is often easier to read and comprehend. I'd rather see something like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/6/9/9695855b7c5869aad99facedc264d54a.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/6/9/9695855b7c5869aad99fa... than something like sum [ for x in s -> f(x) ] on the other hand, without an IDE that's capable of translating between both notations, editing would be rather painful