3 ms·

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You said to stop worrying about tools, and I gave an example where the tool does indeed matter, and then you agree with

by bmitc 3y ago

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You said to stop worrying about tools, and I gave an example where the tool does indeed matter, and then you agree with me but act like you're disagreeing. > A good tool is a suitable and effective tool, not necessarily an aesthetically pleasant tool. Beauty of the tool is not a relevant metric No one is hinging upon aesthetics. They simply come with tools that have been purposefully designed. I might suggest reading some architecture books, from the older architects like Frank Lloyd Wright, or books on complex systems about the relationship between form and function.

bowsamic 3y ago
I’m clarifying my point. You understand my point now I’m sure. And yes there are many many programmers who get hung up on aesthetics
- bmitc 3y ago
  No, I don't understand your point because you said to stop loving your tools, which I don't agree with.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    The charitable (and more reasonable) way to interpret 'loving your tools' is not 'liking your tools intensely' but rather 'don't enter into an exclusive romantic relationship with your preferred tools'. Generally if you can prove your ability to solve problems you get more credibility when deciding the tech stack, but given your assertion elsewhere that "tools are often dictated by those less experienced or even unknowledgeable", then your original question is basically how to prove yourself better than the "middle of the bell curve" under an unfair system. I mean, the points you raised there are probably factual, but it's apparently not a really helpful (to yourself) way to look at things. Generally smart people are able to surround themselves with similar people, and don't really need to find ways to convince unknowledgeable people that they're smart. Software engineering is a huge field and I'm sure you could find people who more resonate with you. And sometimes it just takes some years for people to realize you are right. All that said, I think on the tooling part, it all just boils down to taste. Some tastes are more refined, but they're largely subjective or situational.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    hnfong explained it better than I did

by bmitc 3y ago

bowsamic 3y ago

I’m clarifying my point. You understand my point now I’m sure. And yes there are many many programmers who get hung up on aesthetics

bmitc 3y ago
No, I don't understand your point because you said to stop loving your tools, which I don't agree with.
- hnfong 3y ago
  The charitable (and more reasonable) way to interpret 'loving your tools' is not 'liking your tools intensely' but rather 'don't enter into an exclusive romantic relationship with your preferred tools'. Generally if you can prove your ability to solve problems you get more credibility when deciding the tech stack, but given your assertion elsewhere that "tools are often dictated by those less experienced or even unknowledgeable", then your original question is basically how to prove yourself better than the "middle of the bell curve" under an unfair system. I mean, the points you raised there are probably factual, but it's apparently not a really helpful (to yourself) way to look at things. Generally smart people are able to surround themselves with similar people, and don't really need to find ways to convince unknowledgeable people that they're smart. Software engineering is a huge field and I'm sure you could find people who more resonate with you. And sometimes it just takes some years for people to realize you are right. All that said, I think on the tooling part, it all just boils down to taste. Some tastes are more refined, but they're largely subjective or situational.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  hnfong explained it better than I did