4 ms·

Agreed. Pick 4 languages, 1 each for: - Front-end (JS) - Scritping (Python, Ruby, Perl, PHP) - Applications (Java, C#, Kotlin, Scala, Clojure)

by cutler 3y ago

Agreed. Pick 4 languages, 1 each for: - Front-end (JS) - Scritping (Python, Ruby, Perl, PHP) - Applications (Java, C#, Kotlin, Scala, Clojure) - System (C, C++, Rust) That is all you need. A true master can do a lot with the 2 "worst" languages - JS and PHP.

dgacmu 3y ago
Languages are turing-complete. Tools are not. Example: there are some shapes you cannot physically create as a single unit with a milling machine; they can only be created by additive deposition methods. Or more simply, while you _can_ screw in a star drive screw with a very improperly used hex driver, you probably shouldn't.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  Even more simply than that: if you need to unscrew a screw, using a hammer probably won't work well. Which is why that saying about a poor craftsman blaming his tools is BS: if you're given the wrong tool, you're not going to be able to do a good job.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    I've never heard that saying used in a wrong way like that, about a tool that is just wrong; it's not BS if it's about someone claiming their nails are wonky and the surrounding surface marred because of the 'crap' hammer they used, for example.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      Sure, but that's not what the saying literally says. It says "only a poor craftsman blames his tools". It makes no mention of the tools being actually fit for the purpose. They should have specified that. And even if it is the "right" tool (a hammer for a nail), what if the hammer is a plastic kid's toy? I think this saying makes far too many implicit assumptions about the type and quality of the craftsman's tools.
      - OJFord 3y ago
        It's just to me this seems like taking issue with 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' because sometimes what I'm eating isn't pudding, and some people don't like pudding at all. All sayings have some implicit context or scenario in which they're applicable.
        midoridensha 3y ago
        I suppose so, but for some reason that particular saying rubs me the wrong way. With 'the proof is in the pudding', I can get the meaning, and you could substitute any food. It just means (if I understand correctly) that if someone makes good pudding, you can tell it by eating the pudding. Even if someone doesn't like pudding, they know some pudding is better than others, or can substitute some other food-of-choice here for the same meaning. I don't think the craftsman-tools saying works the same way. For instance, it leaves me with questions like: are the tools actually selected by the craftsman, or were they forced on him by someone else? The pudding saying just doesn't have all these complications as far as I can see.

by cutler 3y ago

dgacmu 3y ago

Languages are turing-complete. Tools are not. Example: there are some shapes you cannot physically create as a single unit with a milling machine; they can only be created by additive deposition methods. Or more simply, while you _can_ screw in a star drive screw with a very improperly used hex driver, you probably shouldn't.

midoridensha 3y ago
Even more simply than that: if you need to unscrew a screw, using a hammer probably won't work well. Which is why that saying about a poor craftsman blaming his tools is BS: if you're given the wrong tool, you're not going to be able to do a good job.
- OJFord 3y ago
  I've never heard that saying used in a wrong way like that, about a tool that is just wrong; it's not BS if it's about someone claiming their nails are wonky and the surrounding surface marred because of the 'crap' hammer they used, for example.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    Sure, but that's not what the saying literally says. It says "only a poor craftsman blames his tools". It makes no mention of the tools being actually fit for the purpose. They should have specified that. And even if it is the "right" tool (a hammer for a nail), what if the hammer is a plastic kid's toy? I think this saying makes far too many implicit assumptions about the type and quality of the craftsman's tools.
    - OJFord 3y ago
      It's just to me this seems like taking issue with 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' because sometimes what I'm eating isn't pudding, and some people don't like pudding at all. All sayings have some implicit context or scenario in which they're applicable.
      - midoridensha 3y ago
        I suppose so, but for some reason that particular saying rubs me the wrong way. With 'the proof is in the pudding', I can get the meaning, and you could substitute any food. It just means (if I understand correctly) that if someone makes good pudding, you can tell it by eating the pudding. Even if someone doesn't like pudding, they know some pudding is better than others, or can substitute some other food-of-choice here for the same meaning. I don't think the craftsman-tools saying works the same way. For instance, it leaves me with questions like: are the tools actually selected by the craftsman, or were they forced on him by someone else? The pudding saying just doesn't have all these complications as far as I can see.