Comments on: Doing good work with bad tools

By: Jan Galkowski

Jan Galkowski — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:42:08 +0000

There’s a reverse spin to this, too. In 35 years of software work I have thrice encountered groups who are so enamoured of their vintage tools that they’ll systematically reject any consideration of alternatives. I’ve seen this happen in two cases where the group will reject business they cannot do with their tool- and mind-set. Perhaps that works some of the time but there are missed opportunities there … I’m not saying EVERY new tool id a good idea — object-oriented programming being one suspect — but doing stuff in assembly or C or shell all the time hes its drawbacks.

By: Kevan

Kevan — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:41:23 +0000

“In some cases, a craftsman will use a poor tool to make a better one!”

I think the important point to take aways isn’t that you shouldn’t use nice, time saving advanced tools, but to realize that they may limit your easily reached solutions in non-obvious ways. It’s important to step back and make sure we aren’t going down the route of path dependence and lock-in. Neal Stephenson wrote an interesting article on this at slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2283469

By: Alpheus

Alpheus — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:56:38 +0000

“The problem with standing on the shoulders of giants is that often your reach and destination are decided by that giant.”

On the other hand, if you’re standing on the right giant, you can produce something as elegant as calculus!

While the best craftsmen can do wonderful things with the poorest of tools–and will do so, when that is all they have–the best craftsmen also appreciate good tools when those tools are available. In some cases, a craftsman will use a poor tool to make a better one!

By: Kevan

Kevan — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:44:24 +0000

‘I don’t call it “hiding behind pillars”. I call it “standing on the shoulders of giants”.’

The problem with standing on the shoulders of giants is that often your reach and destination are decided by that giant.

By: Jason Baker

Jason Baker — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:40:22 +0000

I don’t call it “hiding behind pillars”. I call it “standing on the shoulders of giants”.

By: The myth of the Lisp genius — The Endeavour

The myth of the Lisp genius — The Endeavour — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:18:41 +0000

[...] and the anti-Lisp Doing good work with bad tools Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity ? [...]

By: EastwoodDC

EastwoodDC — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:32:56 +0000

One of my hobbies is painting. When I started a could not tell the difference between low and high quality paints and brushes, but as my skills improved I found there really is a difference if you are skillful enough to take advantage of it. The best of materials do not help without the skills and craftsmanship to make best use of then, and the same should certainly apply to programming.

PS: Charlie Parker’s plastic saxophone is on display at the Kansas City Jazz Museum, a wonderful place to visit should you get the opportunity.

By: John

John — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:54:54 +0000

I understand your comment about using batch files. This kind of thing could be a stunt, going to great effort to avoid using the right tool for the job. But in this case, the developer I mentioned primarily developed C++ applications. Automation wasn’t his main job. But when he needed to do some automation he took a tool he already knew and solved our problem quickly and elegantly.

By: Iftikhar

Iftikhar — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:55:46 +0000

Hi John,

“But I worked with someone who was able to do amazing things with batch files.”

but how much effort did he expend in doing this?

Would it just not be better if that same person had switched to better tools (if available) and done the same amazing things with better tools with less effort?

Quality of tools makes a difference.