Autobiographer badge
-
Except they're not doing the cool stuff. IDEs and graphical debuggers are really, really cool. But Python and Ruby don't have none. Why not?
Except the current generation of OSS coders don't think these are cool. They think coding in vim is cool. They think web stuff is cool.
It's not coolness you're thinking of, but ease. Open source developers only do the easy stuff. And guess what's hard? Well... testing is hard. You have to sit there and run through the same motions over and over. And regression testing is really hard. Oh, and usability? That's hard, I mean, you have to actually schedule live human beings to sit with you in a room and somehow watch them fuck up your software without yelling at them. They don't even like talking to live human beings. New research, doing something like the Office 2007 toolbar, is SUPER hard because not only do you have to do all that testing shit, but there's a high chance you'll have to just throw out and start from scratch anyway.
There are multiple dimensions of difficult.
Human-related stuff, like UI, is one dimension. You're right, you need all these things, like testers and usability experts and market researchers etc... These happen to be the areas at which big players are good at. Where they can throw some cash around and get 50 warm bodies clicking and filling out bug reports. Where they can pay someone to do the boring stuff.
But there are other types of difficult. Like, for instance, the hidden, low-level stuff. Tools and libraries that rarely touch the bottom line of corporations, but are interesting for nerds to dick around. The kind of stuff where your users are themselves programmers, and where they can not only keep you honest in terms of code quality, but can actually get involved with the development and bug fixing. These projects, that are difficult for corporations to care about (and thus finance them properly), are the perfect fit for OSS communities.
-
Except the current generation of OSS coders don't think these are cool. They think coding in vim is cool.
This I do not understand. And I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're definitely right, I just do not understand it.
How is it possible that someone thinks coding the way people coded in 1985 is cool? Nothing else from 1985 is cool; it's lame. Cools things are (generally speaking, and with a few exceptions) brand new.
Sure there's the white t-shirt, leather jacket, sunglasses combination that's been cool for about 60 years, but that's the exception to the rule. Is writing code in Vi like wearing The Fonz' get-up?
But there are other types of difficult. Like, for instance, the hidden, low-level stuff. Tools and libraries that rarely touch the bottom line of corporations, but are interesting for nerds to dick around.
Those aren't difficult, those are fucking boring and tedious, and those problems have been solved 20,000 times already. (Which is also what makes it easy, which is also why it appeals to open source coders.)
-
-
This I do not understand. And I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're definitely right, I just do not understand it.
How is it possible that someone thinks coding the way people coded in 1985 is cool? Nothing else from 1985 is cool; it's lame. Cools things are (generally speaking, and with a few exceptions) brand new.
Sure there's the white t-shirt, leather jacket, sunglasses combination that's been cool for about 60 years, but that's the exception to the rule. Is writing code in Vi like wearing The Fonz' get-up?
You wake up. You put on your finest lowcut jeans and ironic-label t-shirt. You pick the black non-prescription glasses today. You put on something from the beaney rack, take your macbook pro and head out to the local Starbucks. Ahh, good, there's a place right next to the window. You'll be able to draw a lot of natural energies today. Macchiato in hand and obscure Belgian post-rock-electronica drumming in your ear, you're ready to start your day.
Hmm, but what editor to use? I guess you could open up X-Code or one of the excellent JetBrains IDE-s. But that just seems... wrong somehow. Plain. Boring.
Also, there are people around. What if they see your nice, understandable IDE? What if you're caught clicking and browsing and doing all the stuff ordinary computer users do? Why, the onlookers might just move on and not even linger for one second to peer over your shoulder. They might even think you're some kind of ordinary office worker and never realize how special you are! We certainly can't have that!
Thus, you fire up full screen vim and and start typing. Curious people glance over your shoulder at the strange hacker-looking screen. You pretend you don't notice them, while slight erection stirs under the table.
-
9/10, would read again.
-
-
This I do not understand.
Evidently. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it. Thing is, you've actually touched on it earlier - stuff like Ruby and Python, largely speaking, don't have IDEs. What they have is mostly extensible editors. You know, the stuff that tries to beemacsbut can't quite manage it. They go by many names - Sublime text, Textmate, vim, and, surprisingly enough, they do have positive sides to go along with the downsides.For a start, they aren't fucking IDEs in the classic sense.
The problem with open source isn't the editors people use; if you think it is then you're a fucking clueless cunt. Nearly as clueless as Jeff "fucking twat" Atwood, who seems to have got it into his empty little pinhead that the problem with online forums is the software, as opposed to the cunts using it.
-
Evidently. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it. Thing is, you've actually touched on it earlier - stuff like Ruby and Python, largely speaking, don't have IDEs. What they have is mostly extensible editors. You know, the stuff that tries to be emacs but can't quite manage it. They go by many names - Sublime text, Textmate, vim, and, surprisingly enough, they do have positive sides to go along with the downsides.
Well Sublime Text and TextMate definitely have advantages over the other bullshit you spouted. For one thing, a normal human being can figure them out in less than 40 hours because they actually use conventions of the OS they're running in.
For a start, they aren't fucking IDEs in the classic sense.
And being an IDE "in the classic sense" is bad... why?
The problem with open source isn't the editors people use;
No, but that's definitely a factor. Why are they voluntarily throwing away (or not even building in the first place) labor saving devices? You don't see mechanics getting rid of their impact wrench because they want to do things the "old fashioned" way. Because that would be stupid.
In fact, you'd think the entire open source ecosystem was designed around throwing away anything that makes software development easier or more fun, then calling their shitty alternatives "better". Why the fuck are they still writing apps in C or C++? Why would they actually show hostility towards the people who brought C#, finally a decent memory-managed language, to their platform? Complete with IDE and integrated debugger? Fuck a guy solves their entire "Linux development sucks shit" problem, and they react by throwing rotten tomatos at him.
People tell you open source software is good for software development. It is? Seriously? You can be writing a game in Visual Studio, pause execution, and step into a fucking pixel shader. You can't do anything even remotely as sophisticated in any open source tool. Not even remotely.
(Side-note: when I mentioned this on Slashdot, the idiot replying said, "well sure but the pixel shader is emulated, not running on the GPU. As is: 1) that mattered at all, and 2) that justifies the open source equivalent not existing whatsoever.)
Nearly as clueless as Jeff "fucking twat" Atwood, who seems to have got it into his empty little pinhead that the problem with online forums is the software, as opposed to the cunts using it.
Jeff Atwood's using Ruby and a bunch of bullshit broken JavaScript libraries, which all promise to solve all his problems but in reality 1) cause more new problems, and 2) can be reproduced in like 10 lines of your own fucking code in any case. Regardless of why he thinks there needs to be new forum software, he's still picking the shitty tools. If he had a decent development environment for Discourse, maybe he would have saved enough man-hours to actually QA... anything at all.
-
No, but that's definitely a factor. Why are they voluntarily throwing away (or not even building in the first place) labor saving devices? You don't see mechanics getting rid of their impact wrench because they want to do things the "old fashioned" way. Because that would be stupid.
Too dumb.
First, Vim is pluggable. You can script it with any modern language.
Second, Vim exists because it was made to be a labor saving device. By your own logic, "modern IDEs" shouldn't exist.
Third, Vim is highly customizable. Vim, plus plugins, can do pretty much anything a modern IDE can do.
Fourth, if you don't like the UI, don't use it. There are plenty of other pluggable text editors and IDEs on Linux.
Fifth, vi is a POSIX standard. So yes, it follows the OS conventions.
Sixth, stop whining about how other people do things. It has literally nothing to do with you.
-
Second, Vim exists because it was made to be a labor saving device. By your own logic, "modern IDEs" shouldn't exist.
The fuck?
Maybe insane drunken guy on subway logic, but no "my own" logic doesn't state that modern IDEs shouldn't exist because a shitty editor someone write in 1975 does exist.
Third, Vim is highly customizable. Vim, plus plugins, can do pretty much anything a modern IDE can do.
Right, just like a shovel can do anything an impact hammer can do. It's just really, really, really shitty at it.
Fourth, if you don't like the UI, don't use it.
I don't. Obviously. But it still bothers me to see other people wasting their time and neurons on it.
Fifth, vi is a POSIX standard. So yes, it follows the OS conventions.
POSIX doesn't contain any OS UI conventions I am aware of. POSIX is barely anything.
-
Why are they voluntarily throwing away (or not even building in the first place) labor saving devices?
This is your insane subway logic here. Why did other IDEs get built? Obviously, they had to throw away earlier IDEs...
POSIX doesn't contain any OS UI conventions I am aware of. POSIX is barely anything.
Then you are unaware of the UI conventions POSIX contains.
I don't. Obviously. But it still bothers me to see other people wasting their time and neurons on it.
That sounds like a personal problem. And nobody cares about it.
-
If he had a decent development environment for Discourse, maybe he would have saved enough man-hours to actually QA... anything at all.
He devoted quite a bit of time towards QA by having it deployed here and tricking us into finding all of their bugs.
-
they actually use conventions of the OS they're running in.
That's a downside if you're not always using the same OS. With (for example, emacs), incremental search is only ever a ctrl-s away. Not apple-f/apple-g, whatever insane combo exists under linux, etc.So flame emacs (and, for the love of all that's holy, feel free to flame vim to ashes) for being hard to use, but they are the one thing that this fuck-awful software fails to be - consistent.
And being an IDE "in the classic sense" is bad... why?
Mainly because they are inconsistent and partial. Inconsistent between platforms, inconsistent between languages, etc. Partial because they generally only really handle one language well (if they even deign to step outside the comfort zone of C/C++/Java anyway)Why are they voluntarily throwing away (or not even building in the first place) labor saving devices? You don't see mechanics getting rid of their impact wrench because they want to do things the "old fashioned" way.
Because they don't need to. Firstly, if you're not being paid to develop something, what the fuck does it matter if you take slightly longer to do it? and secondly, when you're talking about dynamic languages like Ruby or Python, the tradeoff is development ease against runtime performance (indeed, in Ruby's case, it's a huge fucking tradeoff, Ruby performance sucks shit); a Ruby or Python programmer equipped with a basic text editor is, in all probability, vastly more efficient in turning out lines of working (according to design specs) code than the best c++ coder equipped with (for the sake of argument) Visual Studio.If he had a decent development environment for Discourse, maybe he would have saved enough man-hours to actually QA... anything at all.
No, he wouldn't. The problem there is not development tools, but that Jeff is that most dangerous of things - a man with a mission. His mission doesn't include the concepts of "QA" or "testing" or "usability design", it involves, to the exclusion of all else,What springs from the imagination of Jeff Atwood is guaranteed to be 100% doing it right™
You can't argue against that. He believes that having written a shitty fucking blog, and being involved in second greatest online RPG since Wikipedia, somehow makes him an expert. Fuck, he even brandishes his wiki-notability like it actually means something.
Also, emacs pisses on all of the above from a great height. Flame on.
-
This is your insane subway logic here. Why did other IDEs get built? Obviously, they had to throw away earlier IDEs...
I quite honestly do not have the ability to sink to your level of insanity and figure out what point you're trying to make here.
Are you saying that it's impossible to create Visual Studio as long as Borland C++ Builder exists? Who is "they" in your little insane blurb here? What control over the IT industry do "they" have that "they" can dictate what software exists and what software doesn't? What happened to those copies of Borland Builder, did they spontaneously combust?
What about VS 2013 compared to 2012? Did 2012 have to spontaneously combust before 2013 could be released? Is that what you're proposing happens?
Then you are unaware of the UI conventions POSIX contains.
If they allow for something like Vim to meet their standards, then that is a good thing.
-
tricking us into finding all of their bugs.
Certain of them have been kept quiet [ahem] for future use
-
How dense are you? Software has developed. Great. By your logic, people shouldn't make and adapt labor saving tools, if they have to throw away labor saving tools. This is what YOU said, you troll:
Why are they voluntarily throwing away (or not even building in the first place) labor saving devices?
Who else threw away labor saving tools? The people who made new labor saving tools. Like the Vim plugin system. Or VS2012. Or TextMate.
-
Maybe you're being overly pedantic about his phrasing but, at least to me, what he meant is obvious and obviously not the insane logic you're trying to attribute to him.
-
That's a downside if you're not always using the same OS. With (for example, emacs), incremental search is only ever a ctrl-s away. Not apple-f/apple-g, whatever insane combo exists under linux, etc.
That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Sure, I concede that if you've recently switched to a new OS, you may be unaware of the conventions and need some extra time to learn them all.
So the solution to this problem is to create a program that doesn't follow any OSes conventions, so everybody has to learn it? "Great, I saved an hour after moving to Windows because I already knew Vim's keyboard shortcuts! Of course I lost 80 hours learning those shortcuts in the firstplace." What a great trade-off! Obviously a genius thought up this idea.
(Of course, nobody thought up this idea except retrospectively. What really happened is that some idiot who hated all computer users invented Vim in an environment where software was expected to be difficult and hateful, and all Vim developers since then have been too incompetent to re-write it to be more reasonable. Then when someone brings up an argument like mine, someone ass-pulled the explanation you gave me and now we've come full-circle.)
This whole scenario kind of fits in with my running theme that the open source community seems to do nothing but make things more complicated and difficult.
So flame emacs (and, for the love of all that's holy, feel free to flame vim to ashes) for being hard to use, but they are the one thing that this fuck-awful software fails to be - consistent.
Consistent with what!? Itself? What the fuck good is that?
Mainly because they are inconsistent and partial. Inconsistent between platforms, inconsistent between languages, etc. Partial because they generally only really handle one language well (if they even deign to step outside the comfort zone of C/C++/Java anyway)
Well generally they have plug-in architectures so they can handle any language equally well, in theory. In fact, the best way of writing Ruby code right now is through Visual Studio and the IronRuby plug-in.
Because they don't need to. Firstly, if you're not being paid to develop something, what the fuck does it matter if you take slightly longer to do it? and secondly, when you're talking about dynamic languages like Ruby or Python, the tradeoff is development ease against runtime performance (indeed, in Ruby's case, it's a huge fucking tradeoff, Ruby performance sucks shit); a Ruby or Python programmer equipped with a basic text editor is, in all probability, vastly more efficient in turning out lines of working (according to design specs) code than the best c++ coder equipped with (for the sake of argument) Visual Studio.
Right; but that's because C++ sucks ass.
If you paid up two Ruby developers of equal skill, one of whom had a good IDE and the other was using a text editor, that might be a relevant comparison.
-
-
How dense are you? Software has developed. Great. By your logic, people shouldn't make and adapt labor saving tools, if they have to throw away labor saving tools. This is what YOU said, you troll:
Why are they voluntarily throwing away (or not even building in the first place) labor saving devices?
Who else threw away labor saving tools? The people who made new labor saving tools. Like the Vim plugin system. Or VS2012. Or TextMate.
Again, I have no ability to sink to the level of insanity you're expressing here. I quite honestly and literally have no idea what you are talking about, or what kind of "logic" you're attempting to attribute to me.
EDIT: in case it helps, an example of a pretty good programming tool that the open source community has by-and-large rejected is MonoDevelop. No they didn't literally "throw it away", is that the problem you're having? And what does that have to do with Visual Studio making Borland C++ Builder vaporize?
-
lol @ people arguing with Captain Oblivious
-
It's really simple. Your statement about "labor saving tools" represents a double standard.
Vim is a labor saving tool as well. So, a few consequences of this observation:
-
You decided to throw that labor saving tool away and use VS2012 or whatever. Effectively a double standard.
-
The people who wrote VS2012 decided other IDEs kind of suck, and wrote it. Effectively a double standard, since they chose to not use older IDEs and instead wrote their own.
-
-
That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Sure, I concede that if you've recently switched to a new OS, you may be unaware of the conventions and need some extra time to learn them all.
I code, pretty much interchangeably, on 3 flavours of OSX, 2 different Linuxes, and a couple of BSDs (openBSD and freeBSD). One of the Linuxes and both BSDs are done over ssh connections, so don't even have a "desktop" to speak of, let alone "desktop conventions".So yeah, that's pretty important to me. Your mileage may vary, obviously.
the best way of writing Ruby code right now is through Visual Studio and the IronRuby plug-in.
Possibly. No fucking use to me, though, is it? No .net, no Windows, no plugin and no VisualStudio.But good cross-platform tools do exist. emacs and some of the rather good ruby modes, or LightTable and one of its ruby plugins are some that I've used.
-
It's really simple. Your statement about "labor saving tools" represents a double standard.
Vim is a labor saving tool as well. So, a few consequences of this observation:
You decided to throw that labor saving tool away and use VS2012 or whatever. Effectively a double standard.
The people who wrote VS2012 decided other IDEs kind of suck, and wrote it. Effectively a double standard, since they chose to not use older IDEs and instead wrote their own.Ok; and that leads to Visual Studio making Borland C++ Builder vaporize... how?
You have made the leap to actual, understandable, logic in this post. Kudos. But I don't see how THIS logic has anything to do with your "logic" of 6 posts up.
-
Who said it "vaporizes"? (That was you)
I said that by your logic, VS should not have been written, because it represents throwing away a labor saving device.
-
I code, pretty much interchangeably, on 3 flavours of OSX, 2 different Linuxes, and a couple of BSDs (openBSD and freeBSD)
Why? They're all fucking identical. Except OS X. Just pick one.
So yeah, that's pretty important to me. Your mileage may vary, obviously.
Vim's currently dumb state might be useful to you, but did you pick Vim because of it? Is it a competitive advantage?
And even if it were, wouldn't it have been a much better idea for theoretical-Vim to implement the Windows conventions, since most computer users already know those?
What's the justification for its current state, is basically what I'm asking here.
emacs and some of the rather good ruby modes,
Why the holy shit would their POSSIBLY be more than one ruby mode in an open source editor?!
-
I said that by your logic, VS should not have been written, because it represents throwing away a labor saving device.
No it represents replacing a shitty labor saving device with a better one. The wrench became the torque wrench which became the impact hammer.
-
That is a matter of subjective opinion. You seem to be ignoring that Vim has continued to be developed.
This argument apparently comes down to you saying "My choices are right, and everybody else is wrong." Fine. But nobody cares. You would be better served focusing your energy on things you can change than whining about things you can't.
-
That is a matter of subjective opinion. You seem to be ignoring that Vim has continued to be developed.
And yet it still sucks shit, so. Whee.
You know what else continues to be developed? Land mines. We'd all be better off if they hadn't.
-
Not if you tread on one.
-
-
Why? They're all fucking identical. Except OS X. Just pick one.
No they aren't.The OSX's have more or less the same desktop "expectations", but they differ from those used by a large number of IDEs anyway; IIRC from the time I last used it, IDEA uses non-OSX-suitable keybindings, and pretends it's on Windows wherever it runs.
The Linux desktop environment I use has emacs-alike bindings. You'd "love" it.
As for the others, they're remote shells. No keybindings at all, except those that
screenuses.My point is that I use cross-platform tools which are internally consistent regardless of platform, and, despite having a steep learning curve, do everything I need and more. There is absolutely no platform-specific learning curve beyond getting the tool up and running.
Why the holy shit would their POSSIBLY be more than one ruby mode in an open source editor?!
You haven't seen how many (potentially concurrently running) scheme and lisp modes emacs has.
Why? Dif'rent strokes, man. Dif'rent strokes.
I didn't choose vim, by the way. vim can get fucked.
-
No keybindings at all, except those that screen uses.
CtrlS :rage4:
I wouldn't mind that much, but S is right next to A which you need all the fucking time!
-
The OSX's have more or less the same desktop "expectations", but they differ from those used by a large number of IDEs anyway; IIRC from the time I last used it, IDEA uses non-OSX-suitable keybindings, and pretends it's on Windows wherever it runs.
All IDEA editors have fully rebindable keys, with several presets. Including both XCode and vim bindings.
The Linux desktop environment I use has emacs-alike bindings. You'd "love" it.
As for the others, they're remote shells. No keybindings at all, except those that screen uses.
My point is that I use cross-platform tools which are internally consistent regardless of platform, and, despite having a steep learning curve, do everything I need and more. There is absolutely no platform-specific learning curve beyond getting the tool up and running.
A while back, I switched to OSX for a while, just for kicks. My biggest stumbling blocks were the key bindings. Everything else, I could get used to. However, the GODAWFUL STUPID way home/end keys act (plus the search, clipboard and others), was almost the deal breaker. Eventually I found ways of adjusting keys to match those on Windows/Linux, but there was always something missing, bugging out, a new program that hardcodes this or that combo, etc. It took long time before I was comfortable enough with the OS to be able to work effectively.
So yeah, if I was a vim or emacs guru who does everything using letter keys, I can see how the transition would have been easier in the short term (like if I had to immediately start coding). On the other hand, the rest of the OS would still suck. I would still have to figure out key rebindings in order to become effective. In the long run, it's not worth learning weird ass vim stuff just because of this.
A more valid point is using it as an effective remote editor in terminal. If I ever try to get into vim, it will be because of that.
-
But Python and Ruby don't have none. Why not?
This argument apparently comes down to you saying "My choices are right, and everybody else is wrong."
He essentially said just that on the CS forum. Why he expects anything he says about UI to be taken seriously after that is anyone's guess.
-
blakey's right, they don't have none.
-
IDLE has been criticized for various usability issues [...] lack of copying to clipboard feature,
Enough said.
-
I'd just like to add, PyCharm über alles.
-
Why? They're all fucking identical. Except OS X. Just pick one.
2 types of Linux and 5 types of BSD and blakeyrat says they're all the same except for three of the types of BSD.
"Oh, it's just IE. No need to test on different versions. If it works on 11 it'll work on 6."
That's you. You're channeling Jeff right now.
-
IDLE has been criticized for various usability issues [...] lack of copying to clipboard feature,
Enough said.
Clearly the best programmer IDE ever.
Prevents copy-pasta code right out of the box.
-
2 types of Linux and 5 types of BSD and blakeyrat says they're all the same except for three of the types of BSD.
Except OS X, they all have the same CLI environment, they all have the same two windowing systems, they're all kind of shitty in the same ways.
How are they different? You log into Ubuntu and you see Gnome. You log into BSD and you see Gnome. OoooOOOooo sooo different! Yes, yes, I'm sure they're different in dumb ways that don't matter, but in all the ways that do matter they're identical.
I guess the package manager is different. So when it comes time to actually make your application installer, there's a slight difference there.
-
If they're identical, why should he have to "pick one"?
-
If they're identical, why should he have to "pick one"?
Because the open source community is full of morons who create a brand new OS because they don't like the desktop background in the default theme of another OS. They call this "forking" and try to convince stupid people it's actually a good thing, and not a huge waste of everybody's time and effort.
Or to answer your question a bit more philosophically, he shouldn't have to pick one, there should be only one. There's more actual difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8 than there is between Fedora-with-Gnome and Ubuntu-with-Gnome.
-
That presumes there's only one best way to do anything.
-
If they're identical, it doesn't matter which he picks. Because he picked one, and it's the same as all the others. "Identical" is an equivalence relation...
If they're not identical, then you gave bad advice.
They are also not identical. Especially from an administration point of view. This is a definite consideration for production systems.
-
"Identical" is an equivalence relation.
Fun fact: “identical” is not just an equivalence relation, it's the strongest equivalence relation. If two things are identical, it implies that they're every other sort of equal too.
-
That presumes there's only one best way to do anything.
There is, and that way is my way.
-
-
@blakeyrat, is that you?
I'm not his actively destructive alter-ego, no.
Besides, everyone believes their way is the right way, or else they wouldn't do it that way.
-
I'm not his actively destructive alter-ego, no.
Besides, <i>everyone</i> believes their way is the right way, or else they wouldn't do it that way.Nope. There are things I have implemented knowing full well they're not the right way but for the job at hand, they're the least wrong way. E.g. rewriting thousands of lines of code to 'do it properly' when an ugly three line fix will do.
Back to the Future - Wikipedia
