[anoplus]

Recently I was thinking maybe software industry is too much obsessive about tool making. I wouldn't mind spending much more time and effort using a bad IDE re-factoring bad code that works good and cures cancer. I don't really care how awesome the static analysis tool I am using, or how awesome the meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta programming language I am using if I work on pointless product. Maybe I am wrong and those tools are the only way for real breakthroughs in bioinformatics.

what do you think?

[nickik]

This 'problem' is old. Even the Hackers in the 60s didn't often do anything 'real'. The made tools to make it easier to make other tools, and so on. The think is that WHEN you want to develop something real you want to have these tools ready to go.

With your aditued there will not be that much progress, since everybody would have just said 'mmhh lets not develop a good compiler for C lets write assembler'. In my opinion as long as people develop better tools (languages, IDEs, compilers, debuggers) there is need for them. If one guy spends a couple of month on a Tool, how long will it take until the time saved is 'recoverd' by the users of that tool? Making tools yileds economic benefit, just like in the real word a maschine that does something better or faster will result in economic benefit.

That is not do say there is never mal-investment. Somebody might spend a long time developing something and nobody will use it, programming related or not. This however is not an argument for no innovation.