If I might be so bold as to ask... whether or not referring to a cow-orker as being of "the M$ Visual Studio category" is badmouthing said cow-orker would depend upon your own opinion of those who might rightfully be considered to be in that category, and/or of the tool itself, wouldn't it? | [reply] |
What other reason would a person have for even creating a category named like that, especially with the MS spelled with a $? I think it's pretty clear from the way FOSS types talk to each other what kind of name calling was going on here. If you aren't aware that a stereotypical FOSS characterization of MS stuff and the people people that use their software is negative, perhaps the former won't make as much sense.
| [reply] |
When I write "m$", it's a slam on the company and their products, not on those who use them. I would never judge another professional by the language, tools, or operating systems he or she uses in the course of his or her employment. I might be a "FOSS type" myself (??), but I've had the pleasure of working with some superbly qualified, exceptionally competent windoze programmers -- as well as the displeasure of working with, uh, superoptimally employed POSIX programmers. We humans are a highly variable bunch.
I can't imagine myself saying that someone is a member of the "M$ Visual Studio category", but if I did the most negative implication would be that he or she might have to climb a steep learning/relearning curve in the process of adopting a new environment. Visual Studio does a lot of stuff, and being without its features could be a significant but temporary hindrance to someone who's spent a long time using nothing else.
Since it's been admitted that "M$ Visual Studio" was intended as a derogation of the craftsman rather than the tool, and I've spoken my piece, I'll just shut up and go away now.
Thanks for your time.
| [reply] |