This is so sad.

http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/DoesVisualStudioRotTheMind.html

How can programmers live like that? :(

http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

How can programmers live like that? :(

>>2
I can tell you didn't read the page I linked. Listen to the man's story, faggot.

I don't know about >>2, but I certainly didn't read >>1's story. It got boring, but I'd like to read some programming story that won't bore me, please link me some.

Haxus the Great

tl;dr

You're all a bunch of idiots for not being interested in this topic.

>>7
I'd rather read SICP.

>>7
look at angry man

How is Intellisense a bad thing? It alleviates 90% of all errors coded by myself!

I think the writer of that article needs to get a gun, and one bullet.

>>1
Uncle Enzo would not approve of this

>>7
Maybe some of us aren't interested because we've read it and discussed it enough already.

>For example, for many years programmers have debated whether it’s best to code in a top-down manner, where you basically start with the overall structure of the program and then eventually code the more detailed routines at the bottom. ... Well, the debate is now over [due to IntelliSense].

Methinks the author is a bit of an idiot.

>>13
[b][i]FUCKSHIT[/b][/i]

>>13
How come?

>>10
Gee, I don't know. Perhaps if you read the article, you'd know. He doesn't even say Intellisense is universally bad.

>>15
Because only idiots would change their coding style to appease their shitty development tools.

>>17
here here

>>17
Sure. A person is going to fight their tools every step of the way. Regardless, my point is that so many programmers are living in this hell. This is the state the industry is in. Isn't it sad that so many programmers are living like he is?

>>19
Yes. I become ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ ｅｎｒａｇｅｄ when I think of all the shitty IDE-generated code that's probably in use everywhere.

So, could anyone please tell me how to generate a random number in a given range in Haskell?

>>21
Read SICP.

>>21
Read RWH.

>>21
I think you need a RandomNumberFactory for that.

Eh, it annoys me how they bash VS, but they don't mention NetBeans, Eclipse, and friends. Clearly an anti-Microsoft bias

damn, that was long.
i somehow read it all though. it was good.
>>25
the guy writes books about Windows programming; he probably couldn't care less about non-VS IDEs

>>26
couldn't care less
facepalm.hs

>>27
wat?
is this supposed to be a troll, like with the reverse your/you're thing?

>>28
is this supposed to be a troll, like with the reverse your/you're thing?
That is a Time-Honored Tradiation, perhaps you should _{lurk more}?

>>29
well i've been on /prog/ for atleast a year and only noticed it recently

As >>26-san said, look at him: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Charles_petzold.png

I somehow doubt he uses NetBeans and Eclipse.

>>30
No you haven't. I can tell but your post, as I've seen many /prog/ posts in my time.

>>29
Tradiation

Actually, "could care less" is the correct saying. Because think about it, suppose you're talking about foo, and you say "Ugh, I could care less about foo." What you're saying is, foo is so insignificant, so not worth my time, that my ability to care less about foo, could actually be less then what it currently is.

>>34
EXPERT GRAMMAR

>>34
The phrase "could care less" makes little sense in the context it is most used in. It's like taking a gigantic, ass-reaming shit, and saying "I could shit more", when in fact you mean that you couldn't shit more because you just took a rather impressive shit.

>>36
yes, but you need to take nigger speak into account.
niggers say "bad", but they actually mean "good";
so isn't it plausible that  >>34 is a nigger & ∴ correct (due to the nigger reversal of logic)?

>>26
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I first discovered it yesterday and was left amazed and saddened by what I read therein. Such a contrast between his comfortable habits and his base programmer instincts. I could almost feel it tearing him apart.

>>38
I could feel my penis tearing your anux apart when I haxed it

>>37
Back to /b/, please.

>>31
Oh please tell me that tattoo is a shoop.

>>41
You missed your ``that''. Now your post is ambiguous.

>>42
you have to learn to understand



orbis terrarum delenda faggot

>>43
No, you have to understand to learn.

Isn't it sad, /prog/?


 _______________________________
< in canada, milk comes in bags >
 -------------------------------
 \     ____________
  \    |__________|
      /           /\
     /           /  \
    /___________/___/|
    |          |     |
    |  ==\ /== |     |
    |   O   O  | \ \ |
    |     <    |  \ \|
   /|          |   \ \
  / |  \_____/ |   / /
 / /|          |  / /|
/||\|          | /||\/
    -------------|  
        | |    | |
       <__/    \__>

I once used notepad to write some code

I used metapad(notepad replacement for windows) for several years.

>>47
That's cool, I use nano.

>>48
Why would you replace Notepad?

>>50
It has a limitation of 64kb files and lack of options. It was win98 version.

I used to edit code with edit.com. Much more capable and less retarded than Notepad. (and still is)

Those were the days, when code was simpler.

>>49
me 2

tl;dr

He bitches that software has become significantly more complicated, then briefly wines about the shortcomings of new sophisticated tools before praising the effective implementation of other sophisticated tools, and finally goes back to bitching about how complicated software has become.

Cry me a fucking io stream. If he doesn't like it, he needs to find another job.

>>54
You're mischaracterizing the content of that article. He's talking about programming tools that, for whatever reason, lead programmers to work in a particular fashion, getting caught up in "the rhythm of the machine" rather than in a way that is optimal for humans or will result in quality programs. He goes on to mention some tools that may be better in this regard, and finishes up with an anecdote about programming "naturally", as one might say, illustrating what programming apart from the tools mentioned above is like.

What strikes me, an IDE-free programmer, about it is that so many programmers are structuring their methods around these tools, apparently to the extent that natural, human programming is near-alien. So sad. I'd think all the toy-language fags in /prog/ would pick up on the difference between his world and theirs.

Cry me a fucking io stream. If he doesn't like it, he needs to find another job.
Is it so hard to believe that he does, overall, enjoy his job, even though he feels that in some ways it could be better? Quit being such a fag and looking to find fault where there is none.

>>54
"Cry me a fucking io stream"

I chortled (guiltily at that), then added it to my linked list of retorts.

>>56
I also found the statement humorous, and consed it thusly.

>>57
I added the statement to my Opera notes.

"The Pure Pleasures of Pure Coding"
Awwww yeah.
I use nano while playing music... using a tiling de...

>>57
Too much consing in this thread. Consing is the only source of speed hits in Common Lisp.

>>55
Your well written retort, especially on /prog/, is welcome and appreciated.

You're mischaracterizing the content of that article.
I may be mischaracterizing the point of the article, but hardly the content. He shouldn't have rambled on about various other half-meditated complaints and got to the point.

He's talking about programming tools that lead programmers to work in a particular fashion rather than in a way that is optimal for humans or will result in quality programs.
You could say that about the keyboard you use, the number of monitors you have, or the chair you sit in. A good programmer should already have constructed much of the code design using established patterns and concepts well before even sitting down with a computer. If you're really affected that much by a dumb IDE, you've got bigger problems.

Is it so hard to believe that he does, overall, enjoy his job, even though he feels that in some ways it could be better?
Indeed, without discussing problems things won't improve. So maybe if he discussed the elitist stick up his ass he might get better.

The Sussman is the only source of speed hits in Common Lisp.

>>61
Your well written retort, especially on /prog/, is welcome and appreciated.
If there's one thing I like to write, it's retorts.

I may be mischaracterizing the point of the article, but hardly the content. He shouldn't have rambled on about various other half-meditated complaints and got to the point.
It was originally a talk with a captive audience. But besides that, I found the wealth of specific examples and speculation rather than conclusions to be a welcome change from the polemics one often encounters in programming opinion pieces.

You could say that about the keyboard you use, the number of monitors you have, or the chair you sit in. A good programmer should already have constructed much of the code design using established patterns and concepts well before even sitting down with a computer. If you're really affected that much by a dumb IDE, you've got bigger problems.
You couldn't say your keyboard or chair leads you to work in a particular fashion, although you might be able to make an argument that extra monitors encourage a programmer to read more documentation. Regardless, the very point is that Visual Studio isn't a dumb IDE — it's a smart IDE with ideas of its own. While I agree that in a perfect world, programmers would program in the mind then let it all spill out (then refine it), this is patently not the way that the average programmer does it. This type of programmer, while perhaps capable of adequate design work, will surrender to the studio. Many of them likely learned to program in Visual Studio, meaning that they never even learned to program otherwise.

It's useless to talk merely about what programmers ought to do when it's completely at odds with what they will do, given a particular tool. While some programmers are perfectly willing, or even driven, to strike out on their own, most are more comfortable going with the flow, working as culture and environment dictate, just as most people are. Is it more productive to point out issues with unchanging human nature, or to point out issues with software suites, which can change rapidly if a motivated person is made aware of the problem?

Paul Graham is the only source of speed hits in Common Lisp.

>>62
>>64
They are both the only sources of speed hits for your Internet drug fix.

The whole phrase goes like h a   you think your   tough huh one.

>>63
You couldn't say your keyboard or chair leads you to work in a particular fashion
You only say that because you can't imagine anything different that the current predominate designs. There is almost certainly better ways to position yourself in front of your computer and input commands (perhaps the next iCode?). Heck, he even refers to Ctrl+Z, which might not even exist in its current form had the keyboard been designed completely differently.

The cell phone "was partially invented because it was possible to do it." And how is that different from how every invention was ever made?

He continues: Email sucks. Internet Explorer's yellow security bar sucks. Visual Studio sucks. PowerPoint sucks. API Proliferation sucks. IntelliSense sucks. Automatic code generation sucks. Visual Basic sucks. MFC sucks. Form designer default names suck. Overused class fields suck.

Why stop there? He should have added ctags suck, emacs/vi convoluted mess of input keys suck, and Linux requirement to use the terminal sucks.

Then for some reason he makes Avalon and XAML out to be gods gift to programmers, even though there's bound to be tons of issues with them as well.

Finally, all his bitching of flaws wasn't even the real point (WTF?). His presentation is nothing more than some melancholy picture of the human condition--bemoaning the relentless march of people's reaction to technology. It's the nerdy version of people that push for us to get back to nature, except that there's nothing natural about entering commands into a computer, via keyboard or punchcard.

While having nearly no technical substance, he then tries to push it off as some analysis of Visual Studio? And with a title like "Does Visual Studio Rot the Mind?", all he successfully does is pour fuel on Microsoft hate mobs.

It's useless to talk merely about what programmers ought to do
But that's exactly what he's doing.

No, the author is just some emo bitch trying to sound smart. Anyone that read it is now dumber for having done so. The author is awarded no points, and may the sussman have mercy on his soul.