I'm always kind of baffled when it comes to the complexity of certain development setups. If I *need* a certain IDE and certain operating systems for working on a project, it's usually a code smell. Just compilers, build tool and an editor should be sufficient, the rest is extra.
ITT: people losing their shit because they read "IDEs ARE USELESS AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD FOR USING THEM". Something I never said, but hey, who am I to deny them their little freak out?
@raichoo I'm a software dev and I barely care what people use xD
JetBrains? sure.
VSC? sure.
Sublime? fine by me.
If it works for them, I don't care :^)
The result is what matters in the end anyways.
I had this issue with trying to use Garmin's ConnectIQ SDK a while ago...
basically useless without using Eclipse >.>
Not even "You'll miss out on some nice to haves when not using Eclipse" but outright: "Use Eclipse or don't bother"...
@finlaydag33k People should be using whatever they need to feel productive. Just not force it down other people's throats by making in mandatory when it's not absolutely necessary.
Regarding editors, in my eyes, there are only two condierations:
1. ITSEC/OPSEC: sometimes you don't want for developers to develop some parts of your codebase using malware/spyware/cracked editors,
2. making sure that the autoformatter in VIM, Emacs and VSCode agrees.
Regarding forcing OS: I think it's not only _not always_ code smell, but also is _sometimes advisable_. Companies that develop product, not sell a service arguably _should_ force OS as a way to guarantee that development environment works reproducibly 100% of times and is possible for a new person to set up in under an hour, you're doing really well. It is even more true when said company operates on a smaller budget or has mission-critical infrastructure.
This is something my friends from one of German HFT software development companies explained when they were criticising the fact that in Serokell we're using Nix and NixOS! And they were largely right: our recent move to flakes was expensive! Our maintenance of haskell.nix and our pins for nixpkgs is expensive and unavoidable. Of course, we are OK with suffering the costs since we're approaching 100 employees and we actually need pluralism, thus we need Nix.
For Doma, however, which is @pola's and mine pet-business, we have achieved great results with forcing Ubuntu LTS everywhere on a 10$/mo budget.
To be fair, I'm playing devil's advocate here. In the majority of cases such as FOSS and for larger companies, there is *no legitimate reason* to deny patches from people, who prepared them using their own toolchain! Recently in Serokell we couldn't agree on the format of a patch, so I just sent a patch the way I wanted and the person in charge of upstreaming it converted it to what is established in their practices, took us negligible (but non-zero) amount of time.
@jonn @finlaydag33k @pola In another conversation regarding the original toot I pointed out that my use of the word "usually" was intentional. Of course there is almost always an exception to a rule. In most cases forcing a specific decisions on developers regarding those choices is unnecessarily distracting most of the time.