4 ms·
The simple tool analogy is flawed, I think. A hammer, saw, or screwdriver tend to do one, maybe two (in the case of a case) things well. A programmer's editor
by bmj 15y ago
The simple tool analogy is flawed, I think. A hammer, saw, or screwdriver tend to do one, maybe two (in the case of a case) things well. A programmer's editor will often need to do lots of thing well (or, at least a few, specialized things well).
That said...
To me, the article is exactly like the examples above. Take some widely used tool and say what it does. It's common knowledge and I don't care that you use a particular tool exactly the way it's advertised.
I agree. Of course, the opposite side of the coin is that sometimes, people who don't use the tool in question need to find a nice, concise overview of why this tool is really swell, rather than "anti-patterns in tool x." So, I can live with a few "my_editor_of_choice is awesome because" articles. It's easy enough to not click on a link.
- Splines 15y agoI think more complicated machinery fits the analogy better. Photography, for example. For many people a simple point & shoot camera is good enough (e.g., notepad). They start quickly, they are cheap, and they get the job done, but push the boundaries and you'll wish you had more. For others who want more power, there are digital slr cameras with a wealth of features available (e.g., VS/Eclipse). Then there are those who insist that their 1970s vintage film camera will always outperform the latest technology (e.g., Emacs/Vim). Another analogy that I thought of was heavy machinery (they are complicated machines that are designed for complicated tasks), but I have no idea if there are construction workers that discuss the merits of Japanese vs American earth mover design or think the controls from some 1980s era Russian dump truck can never be matched.