On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 06:05:20PM +1300, James Miller wrote: [...] > My ongoing quest for productivity has led me to believe that, unless > you want to be tied to a technology, back to basics is the best way.
That's an interesting observation. I have to agree. > I personally believe that any set of tools should be made thinking > about the use case: "What if this person was developing using a > Tektronix 4014?", I'm not saying that we should still be coding to 30 > year old terminals, but the idea is that somebody might not having a > gui should not immediately be a blocker. This reminds me of a very insightful quote I found online a while ago: A program should be written to model the concepts of the task it performs rather than the physical world or a process because this maximizes the potential for it to be applied to tasks that are conceptually similar and, more important, to tasks that have not yet been conceived. -- Michael B. Allen > This has been Windows' Achilles' heel for a while, many products don't > work without a gui, and therefore are difficult - or impossible - to > script. If you can provide a programmatic interface to your system, > then you have just allowed a ton more products to be made, at no extra > cost to you. It's exactly as I quoted above: by limiting yourself to a GUI, you have limited the applicability of your program, even if what the program actually *does* is not inherently related to a GUI. > Clang has built-in support for auto-completion and syntax analysis and > the front-end is even nicely packaged into a library, so I now have > C/C++/Objective-C, context-aware, accurate completion in vim, through > the vim plugin clang-complete, this was not made by the people at > Clang, they just exposed the functionality (by the way, XCode uses the > same system, and Code::Blocks is moving their code-model to it too). "This maximizes the potential for it to be applied ... to tasks that have not yet been conceived." :-) [...] > * Programming using `cat` is not recommended.** > ** Even though /real/ programmers use `cat` [...] Oh? I thought *real* real programmers use a soldering iron, a pair of tweezers, a magnifying glass, and really *really* steady hands... Tricky things to program, those new-fangled nanometer-scale microprocessors they make these days. :-P T -- To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- Samuel Adler