On flamewars about tools
Programmers seem to have always loved a good flamewar, mostly about the tools they work with. From the top of my head:
- Emacs vs Vi;
- Linux vs Window vs macOS;
- Editor vs IDE;
- Static vs dynamic typing;
- AI assisted programming vs not doing that.
That latest entry in that unfortunate list is pretty recent. Like always, there's the proponents who feel they've seen the light and need to share the good news, and the other side, deeply sceptical. Any conversation between these two groups quickly turns into insults - not necessarily the kind social networks have filters for, but at least subtle stabs at each other's competence.
I've been wondering about this. Why do people feel the need to spread the gospel about tools that work for them? Why is there such strong opposition on the other side against stuff they have often not even tried? Why do so many people get so worked up about this stuff? I mean, who cares what other people use? I never really did. It's just tools.
Even though I see this again and again and again, for decades now, I still can't get to the bottom of it. Is it some kind of tough love style benevolence? Is it arrogance? Or just a terminal lack of empathy?
My opinion on the matter is dry: Everybody should just use what works for them. I don't need to understand why a tool that doesn't work for me works for somebody else, or vice versa. People are different, they have different skills, different things that motivate them, different problems to solve. Some say there's a best tool for the job, but I rather think there's multiple good tools for any given job, and what really matters is not just what needs to be done, but also who is doing it.