4 ms·
> is not useful Says who? I think (as a devil's advocate) it's very useful that people are interchangeable, and that tools are similar enough to allow people t
by oneplane 4y ago
> is not useful
Says who? I think (as a devil's advocate) it's very useful that people are interchangeable, and that tools are similar enough to allow people to collaborate.
I also think that if (imaginary percentages used) a 10% reduction in productivity because a worker can't use their most bestest tool ever is worth it if it means I can get 40 of those workers for the same price as 10 workers that are proficient in that very special choice of tool. You can pretty much exchange any of those with management overhead or policy requirements (be it by law or otherwise).
- Beltalowda 4y agoI'm not saying there aren't completely valid reasons for a business to have certain policies limiting the software used by their employees (including OS choice), it's just not useful for me. Learning a new language or technology is useful for me because I can then use that language or technology. But switching OS or editor or whatnot well enough to be my daily driver? I don't really see how that's useful for me. I don't really learn anything new, and I won't be any more productive; it'll just be "a thing I have to do, grumble". That's it's useful for the business is a separate thing. > tools are similar enough to allow people to collaborate. I think this reason in particular isn't all that valuable though; especially not since people tend to customize their setups anyway. I once worked somewhere that mandated software choice (including IDE) for this reason and I never saw any value in it.