|
|
|
|
|
by mhink
3802 days ago
|
|
> Most of the time I don't need to understand the physics of a harddisk. But I know a hard disk operates under certain physical laws. When I encounter something happening wrong it has on occasion been useful to be able to follow the trail all the way down to that disk and debug at that level. I'm not entirely sure how a filesystem works under the hood (let alone the physical media it's on), despite interacting heavily with one every day. A bug involving a hard disk would be incredibly opaque to debug, from my perspective. I suspect that you find it easy, because you've spent the time developing an understanding of the system. > Not only do you not know there is another layer somewhere doing stuff that impacts you you can't even reliably follow a path to find that layer and debug it. And this is where our roles are reversed! I would have little trouble following that path, all the way down into C if needed- because I've spent plenty of time understanding the system. The problems you describe are problems anyone would have with an unfamiliar system, and it's not Ruby's fault. |
|
Way to reduce what he's saying into the classic, "He can't be depressed! There's starving kids in Africa dying!". You've taken his /observations/, misplaced the usefulness of those observations, and then reduced them into some absurd argument that he's not actually making.
Accessibility to the unfamiliar access goes wonders and reduces the "magic" feel. If ruby doesn't have that sort of accessibility, then it IS Ruby's fault. If that's what Ruby actually wants, that's fine - but holy crap, it's this sort of mentality that completely fucks over usability.