3 ms·

Talking about the differences between, say, assembly language and Ruby is very different than arguing about what color is the best. I guarantee that some proje

Talking about the differences between, say, assembly language and Ruby is very different than arguing about what color is the best. I guarantee that some projects will be successful if written in one of those languages, and not the other (webapp in assembly? bootloader in Ruby?). Also, in your view, how is talking about data structures any better than talking about languages? Wouldn't that just be "indoctrinating me on the benefits" of your chosen data structure? If the only thing that matters is that the program works, then why does it matter what kind of balanced binary tree is in use behind the scenes, any more than the language matters? Tools do matter. Maybe you're not interested in incremental improvements in your productivity as a programmer, but those who are will probably spend time talking about their tools (hopefully balanced by spending even more time actually using them).

scott_s 15y ago
I think we was just trying to differentiate between advocating a particular technology versus discussing a fundamental idea. Using the examples that other people have given from hobbies and sports, it's like the inclination to discuss gear instead of the activity itself.
- humbledrone 15y ago
  Discussing software tools as a programmer is nothing at all like discussing lenses on a camera. As far as I'm aware, there's no lens out there that can increase your productivity as a photographer by tenfold. Choosing Ruby over assembly language for a webapp could _easily_ increase your productivity by tenfold (probably more like a hundredfold). Obviously not every software tool discussion is as exaggerated as that, but even if you're arguing Django vs Rails, there really are significant differences that could affect your work in dramatic ways (e.g. one framework has a plugin that would take you a week to write, while the other doesn't).
  - PedroCandeias 15y ago
    The assembly vs ruby analogy is indeed a stretch, but I get your point. Still, what you're talking about boils down to objective discussion and that's something I really like. My problem is with those folks who, instead of having sane debates, get all religious with their programming language(s) of choice.
PedroCandeias 15y ago
I don't think you read me right. There's nothing wrong with debating the pros and cons of a language (or whatever else), but there's a difference between discussing and preaching. I'm always open to a nice chat, but I've got little patience for preachers. That's all I'm saying.
- humbledrone 15y ago
  Yeah, I think we actually agree. :) I have known preachers, and you're right that there is a big difference between them and engineers that just want to find the best tool for the job.
- mikedouglas 15y ago
  It's hard to understand your point if you change it. Of course no one likes preachers or endless discussions or anything else that's clearly bad: that doesn't have a whole lot to do with programming languages though. If that's all you're saying, it doesn't amount to much. What you actually wrote (and what this article partially argues) is that the only thing that mattered was that it worked, which is a statement people can disagree over. Working isn't a binary switch that flips when you launch, any discussion of the value of something as complex as a piece of software has a lot of different dimensions. After all, bubble sort "works" too, but you'd be a pretty terrible computer scientist if that was as far as you investigated the issue.

scott_s 15y ago

I think we was just trying to differentiate between advocating a particular technology versus discussing a fundamental idea. Using the examples that other people have given from hobbies and sports, it's like the inclination to discuss gear instead of the activity itself.

humbledrone 15y ago
Discussing software tools as a programmer is nothing at all like discussing lenses on a camera. As far as I'm aware, there's no lens out there that can increase your productivity as a photographer by tenfold. Choosing Ruby over assembly language for a webapp could _easily_ increase your productivity by tenfold (probably more like a hundredfold). Obviously not every software tool discussion is as exaggerated as that, but even if you're arguing Django vs Rails, there really are significant differences that could affect your work in dramatic ways (e.g. one framework has a plugin that would take you a week to write, while the other doesn't).
- PedroCandeias 15y ago
  The assembly vs ruby analogy is indeed a stretch, but I get your point. Still, what you're talking about boils down to objective discussion and that's something I really like. My problem is with those folks who, instead of having sane debates, get all religious with their programming language(s) of choice.

PedroCandeias 15y ago

I don't think you read me right. There's nothing wrong with debating the pros and cons of a language (or whatever else), but there's a difference between discussing and preaching. I'm always open to a nice chat, but I've got little patience for preachers. That's all I'm saying.

humbledrone 15y ago
Yeah, I think we actually agree. :) I have known preachers, and you're right that there is a big difference between them and engineers that just want to find the best tool for the job.
mikedouglas 15y ago
It's hard to understand your point if you change it. Of course no one likes preachers or endless discussions or anything else that's clearly bad: that doesn't have a whole lot to do with programming languages though. If that's all you're saying, it doesn't amount to much. What you actually wrote (and what this article partially argues) is that the only thing that mattered was that it worked, which is a statement people can disagree over. Working isn't a binary switch that flips when you launch, any discussion of the value of something as complex as a piece of software has a lot of different dimensions. After all, bubble sort "works" too, but you'd be a pretty terrible computer scientist if that was as far as you investigated the issue.