4 ms·

I am afraid the author confuses familiarity with proof that his tools are better. The reality is that every tool has a trade off, and if a user prefers tool X c

by sph 3mo ago

I am afraid the author confuses familiarity with proof that his tools are better. The reality is that every tool has a trade off, and if a user prefers tool X compared to tool Y, it’s not because they are dumb, but likely they make better use of the affordances of that tool that only a power user would get. Give a developer 10 years each with vim, emacs and Sublime Text, they wouldn’t be so sure which is better. [1] They might have a personal favourite, sure, but would also be able to tell why other people prefer other tools. I am afraid this is one of those arguments borne of ignorance whereby one is has never given a proper chance to software they are unfamiliar with. 1: to me the mark of a greybeard that has been around a while is a vague dislike of every software and any promise of improving such software. In the long run, every piece of software tends towards mediocrity.

cj 3mo ago
> In the long run, every piece of software tends towards mediocrity. Alternative view: Maybe that's okay, and greybeards know that. Mediocre: "something of only moderate or ordinary quality" Maybe we don't need the latest and greatest extraordinary technology when coding our next CRUD app.
zaphar 3mo ago
The article was not against a tool but a way of thinking. He didn't say anywhere that Sublime was better than Vim. He did say that he disagrees with the idea that a tools friction is a feature. I can take his entire thesis and use it to show that vim is the perfect editor for me precisely because vim is invisible to me when I use it. In part this is because I turned vim into the tool I wanted. He turned sublime into the tool he wanted. His basic point however still stands. If you are making something for someone else to use then making that tool invisible to them is a powerful property.
- rjbwork 3mo ago
  >He turned sublime into the tool he wanted. I think this also misses the point. Sublime just is the tool I want. I install it and I use it. Eventually I may install a handful of add-ons via the baked in package control. But primarily it just is the text editor I want.
gingerBill 3mo ago
> I am afraid the author confuses familiarity with proof that his tools are better. Literally NOT what I was implying or even said anywhere. Quote me where I said anything like that. To quote myself: > What baffles me is that so many people treat that friction—the effort of working around a tool’s limitations—as the “fun” part, and then advertise it as evidence that the tool is great. This has nothing to do with why I or another person one tool over another, but rather treating the flaws as if they are things to have a puzzle game to work around.
- sph 3mo ago
  People don't use vim because they enjoy puzzle solving. I don't even know how you got this conception. People use vim because they are effective at editing with vim, period, just like you are effective with Sublime Text. People don't use Linux because they enjoy tweaking config files and everybody else has too busy a life to do that. That's a silly misconception and veiled attempt at feeling superior at those time-wasters. > rather treating the flaws as if they are things to have a puzzle game to work around Case in point. Good tools are indeed invisible, but the arguments the article is built on are very shaky and honestly just sound from someone that didn't spend much time with other tools, but still has strong opinions about them.
  - zaphar 3mo ago
    I do know quite a few people who use vim because they do enjoy the puzzle. So there are absolutely people as he describes. Saying that there aren't people like that just undermines your point.
    - sph 3mo ago
      Geez, I’m not saying there are none. I’m saying it’s silly to characterise it as an editor for puzzle lovers. You knowing ‘quite a few people’ can’t be generalised to the millions that use vim daily.
      - jt2190 3mo ago
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
frollogaston 3mo ago
The article does say this... If people find vim, emacs, or whatever genuinely good and productive, I’m not going to criticize them for using it. People are most comfortable with what they know. But for the people I am discussing, that same familiarity blinds them to their tools’ flaws, and leads them to celebrate those flaws, flaunting them as games. Sorry, I find the Linux desktop thing to be an accurate generalization. There's scarcely any usability advantage over there unless someone has specific requirements. The dominating mindset there isn't to make stuff just work, and it shows. Vim, not so much, maybe I don't know enough who use vim besides myself.

by sph 3mo ago

cj 3mo ago

> In the long run, every piece of software tends towards mediocrity. Alternative view: Maybe that's okay, and greybeards know that. Mediocre: "something of only moderate or ordinary quality" Maybe we don't need the latest and greatest extraordinary technology when coding our next CRUD app.

zaphar 3mo ago

The article was not against a tool but a way of thinking. He didn't say anywhere that Sublime was better than Vim. He did say that he disagrees with the idea that a tools friction is a feature. I can take his entire thesis and use it to show that vim is the perfect editor for me precisely because vim is invisible to me when I use it. In part this is because I turned vim into the tool I wanted. He turned sublime into the tool he wanted. His basic point however still stands. If you are making something for someone else to use then making that tool invisible to them is a powerful property.

rjbwork 3mo ago
>He turned sublime into the tool he wanted. I think this also misses the point. Sublime just is the tool I want. I install it and I use it. Eventually I may install a handful of add-ons via the baked in package control. But primarily it just is the text editor I want.

gingerBill 3mo ago

> I am afraid the author confuses familiarity with proof that his tools are better. Literally NOT what I was implying or even said anywhere. Quote me where I said anything like that. To quote myself: > What baffles me is that so many people treat that friction—the effort of working around a tool’s limitations—as the “fun” part, and then advertise it as evidence that the tool is great. This has nothing to do with why I or another person one tool over another, but rather treating the flaws as if they are things to have a puzzle game to work around.

sph 3mo ago
People don't use vim because they enjoy puzzle solving. I don't even know how you got this conception. People use vim because they are effective at editing with vim, period, just like you are effective with Sublime Text. People don't use Linux because they enjoy tweaking config files and everybody else has too busy a life to do that. That's a silly misconception and veiled attempt at feeling superior at those time-wasters. > rather treating the flaws as if they are things to have a puzzle game to work around Case in point. Good tools are indeed invisible, but the arguments the article is built on are very shaky and honestly just sound from someone that didn't spend much time with other tools, but still has strong opinions about them.
- zaphar 3mo ago
  I do know quite a few people who use vim because they do enjoy the puzzle. So there are absolutely people as he describes. Saying that there aren't people like that just undermines your point.
  - sph 3mo ago
    Geez, I’m not saying there are none. I’m saying it’s silly to characterise it as an editor for puzzle lovers. You knowing ‘quite a few people’ can’t be generalised to the millions that use vim daily.
    - jt2190 3mo ago

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

frollogaston 3mo ago

The article does say this... If people find vim, emacs, or whatever genuinely good and productive, I’m not going to criticize them for using it. People are most comfortable with what they know. But for the people I am discussing, that same familiarity blinds them to their tools’ flaws, and leads them to celebrate those flaws, flaunting them as games. Sorry, I find the Linux desktop thing to be an accurate generalization. There's scarcely any usability advantage over there unless someone has specific requirements. The dominating mindset there isn't to make stuff just work, and it shows. Vim, not so much, maybe I don't know enough who use vim besides myself.