Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I really don't think the article was seriously suggesting what you think it was; showing similarities between different types of tools (usually a more familiar one and a less familiar one) is meant to be illustrative


sort by: page size:

Too pedantic. I don't think the categories are meant to imply that the tools are similar to each other.

Does this article not need to say more than the <title> and a picture of tools? Because that's all I see

I'm not sure what kind of 'tools' the author is referring to though.

Exactly - I read it as an expression of a tool designed as a tool, rather than an elegant and intellectually fulfilling exploration of toolness.

So… we have a guy with what looks like a limited experience of tools A and B writing an article full of hyperbole and factually wrong on how tool B kills tool A.

Yes, tool B is a good tool. However I can't imagine a single reason why anybody with a sizeable experience of tool A switch to tool B.

Newcomers who turned to tool A because it was trendy last year but never got the hang of it, on the other hand…


I think they were just making a sarcastic point - i.e. the tool has lots of uses!

It's just using name brands for describing legacy-jank-by-noobs - not really a dig at those specific tools

I don't really understand your point. Is that a truism? Is it related to the freaking article? Also, have you built a tool or was that sarcasm?

Why are there random pictures of tools in this article?

Right! Your comment re: special tools in the article now makes more sense.

Your tool looks awesome! Yes there are lots of such tools.I should have worded mine as 'something along the lines of ...' instead of saying that its similar.

This is quite a silly article. You can't blame a tool because it's been misused.

This seems like just another "bad" == "I prefer a different type of tool."

I don't see the OP making a claim like that. In any case, OP did not specify what the purpose of the tool was/is, and doesn't seem to be willing to explain the purpose of the the tool is.

Who said anything about novelty? Referring to tools that do most of what is described seems to negate any claims of novelty.

I wasn't insinuating that those example are 'refined' or anything; just that the ideas embodied in those tools might be worth knowing about.

They are two completely different tools, they can't be compared, serve different purposes.

> Hard to tell if a tool is useful if there is not high quality research backing up the claim.

That's obviously not true. Show me the high quality research studies backing up the idea that a hammer is useful for hammering nails or that a flat-head screwdriver is useful as a improvised chisel. The way to tell if a tool is useful is if you use it and it works for your application.


It's like comparing a hammer and a screwdriver when you really like screwdrivers using comparison points such as "Does it put it screws?" Point being, they're not tools designed to solve the same problems.
next

Legal | privacy