One of the questions I’ve had looking at software development and the culture around software development is this: how much do we use our tools versus how much the tools use us?
I know that sounds a big vague and fluffy, but the point of the essay, if I understood it, was that the process of creating components changes the people who are creating them as much as it does the codebase.
I’m fond of the related Iron Law of Tools. In Gene Hughson’s formulation, “That which does for you, also does to you.” I suppose we’re looking at a corollary: “That which you do, also does to you.” (Part of why I like switching between static and dynamic langs, IDEs and text editors, etc. Helps me see what I’m doing for, to, and with myself.)
One of the questions I’ve had looking at software development and the culture around software development is this: how much do we use our tools versus how much the tools use us?
I know that sounds a big vague and fluffy, but the point of the essay, if I understood it, was that the process of creating components changes the people who are creating them as much as it does the codebase.
It’s a fascinating idea.
I’m fond of the related Iron Law of Tools. In Gene Hughson’s formulation, “That which does for you, also does to you.” I suppose we’re looking at a corollary: “That which you do, also does to you.” (Part of why I like switching between static and dynamic langs, IDEs and text editors, etc. Helps me see what I’m doing for, to, and with myself.)