Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!zen!frank
From: frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C Programmer's Environment
Message-ID: <1621@zen.co.uk>
Date: 20 Jun 89 12:06:33 GMT
References: <2494481@<14810> <4700039@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1133@vsi.COM>
Reply-To: frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales)
Organization: Zengrange Limited, Leeds, England
Lines: 27

In article <1133@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:
>In article <4700039@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>> But, if you're a system administrator, *don't* force your users to
>> scrap their favorite environments unless it's necessary to preserve
>> consistency of your product.
>
>How about this one:
>In an office with a lot of people using spreadsheets, databases,
>word processors, everybody uses Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, and
>WordPerfect.  Everybody is happy.  Then somebody is hired who is
>realy comfortable with some other set of tools.  He tears into
>everything and becomes really productive, and everybody is still
>happy.  Then he leaves for whatever reason, and now nobody can
>figure out any of his stuff.  They can't run payroll, read any of
>his WP files, etc.  Then the new guy wonders why the management
>says "you will use *these* tools."

This seems a red herring to me.  vi/emacs/your-fave-editor all
work on the *same* stuff, plain text files.  So do all the compilers,
etc..  At least in this case, the problems associated with
incompatible file formats and so on don't apply.  In terms of
product, all development environments ought to be equivalent.
[Of course, if the new guy uses another programming language, that's
a fish of a different colour.]
--
Frank Wales, Systems Manager,        [frank@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank]
Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217