[erlang-questions] Use of makefiles
Sun Mar 2 19:30:40 CET 2008
So, Fortran is your one pair of terrible fitting jeans before there were so
many options. My question is "is it possible to become more satisfied by
artificially limiting our choices?" For builds, if I force myself to only
use make, even though I know there are so many more possibilities, will I be
more satisfied with the results?
To answer my own question, I think once you've opened Pandora's box you can
never go back. I also think that, once opened, artificially limiting the
choices a particular Pandora's box provided is better than no limits.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> On a slightly different track - I was thinking the other that one of
> the problems we face to today is
> a totally bewildering amount of choice.
> When I started program I could choose between FORTRAN and
> well ummmm .... FORTRAN - so I chose FORTRAN - for *everything* there
> were no scripting languages
> and only a line editor (not even full screen) and not even a
> hierarchical file system (max ten letters for the file name and
> three for the extension)
> This meant there was no wasted time in choosing tools - there were no
> tools - If you wanted a tool you'd write it
> yourself - (so I "invented" email and text formatting languages and
> loads of other little tools all for myself).
> Now we have a bewildering amount of choice between large numbers of
> tools that "almost" solve our problems -
> The trouble is that fixing them to do "exactly" what we want (and not
> almost) can be almost impossibly difficult.
> Take a look at this talk
> His thesis is "too much choice ..." ... "equals paralysis" and makes
> us less satisfied with the results.
> I had no expectation that FORTRAN would be good for everything - it
> was not. The secret
> to programming bliss is low expectations - all tools are terrible (at
> least compared to our
> brains) and no tool will radically change this. Emacs and make are
> less bad than many of the
> alternatives ...
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Steve Vinoski <vinoski@REDACTED> wrote:
> > On 2/29/08, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> > > In general I try to use *generic* tools for all programing tasks,
> > > me this means that
> > > make, emacs, bash, and xterm are constants for all projects. The
> > > bit that varies is the choice
> > > of programming language.
> > >
> > > When I learn a new language all I have to do is learn the language -
> > > all the other tools say the same -
> > > in the long term this is far better than learning specific tools for
> > > each language - it allows me to concentrate
> > > on the important details (learning the new language) and not get
> > > bogged down in the details of the support
> > > system. (This is also why I *hate* visual environments - each one is
> > > *different*, text tools stay the same
> > > across machine and time boundaries). I can (and do) run makefiles
> > > are 15 years old - the same cannot be said for visual build
> > > environments.
> > Hi Joe, I agree with you 100%. Give me emacs (with its vast emacs-lisp
> > extensibility), bash (or ksh), and various UNIX command-line tools,
> > which I can combine as I wish using pipes, and keep the visual tools
> > out of my way (and out of my RAM).
> > Here's a very insightful explanation of the differences between those
> > of us who look to languages for productivity, and others who instead
> > look to tools and IDEs for productivity:
> > <http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides>
> > --steve
> erlang-questions mailing list
Salient Blue. It's NOT people.
My blog: http://blog.salientblue.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions