I'm just saying... Good developers concentrate on building things. Bad developers concentrate on how much they like their tools.
You see it in everything in life though. The best way to become a fantastic cyclist say, isn't to buy the best bike out there. It's to buy a crappy cheap bike, and learn how to get the most out of it.
Seriously... if I were to pick something I'd pick music. Miles Davis on a $100 trumpet could make better music than almost anyone else with a $10k one.
That's still missing the key element. While people who are the best at something (cycling, trumpet, archery, programming) could outperform 99.999% of the population using crappy tools, that's not the point. They don't compete against 99.999% of the population. They compete against the 0.001% of the population who are their peers. And at that level of competition - when everyone is so good, and the margins of victory so slim - they use the best tools they can find.
I suppose that's true in situations where there is a significant advantage to being 1st over third or just being in those top percentiles. Splitting hairs over a topic I didn't disagree with you on from 24 hours ago, but I'd say that sorta breaks the metaphor for this particular situation. There isn't really an advantage to being the world's greatest programmer vs the world's top 1% of programmers. When you get to that level it's all gravy.
Which makes me realize I have no idea who the world's best programmer is.
Yes, and at some point in your development of competence you become hindered by bad tools. Otherwise we would not be using debuggers, high-level languages, big monitors, or anything beyond a simple text editor and console.
The best way to become a fantastic cyclist is to cycle a whole heck of a lot. Buying a good or bad bike doesn't make you a good cyclist. But having a good bike can help you enjoy cycling more, and make you a better cyclist by virtue of the fact that you do it more often as a result.
