[cole-k]

That's kind of a weird point to make. I don't see why it would be a universal truth that a good programmer is someone who invests in their tools.

I could just as easily say that good programmers are the ones who don't have sophisticated tooling setups because it means that they spend more time programming.

I'm inclined to agree with other comments that the baseline for productivity is probably lower than we think. It's fine to enjoy the process of making a perfect setup, but I don't see it as a prerequisite or strong indicator for being a strong programmer.

[iLemming]

> I don't see why it would be a universal truth that a good programmer is someone who invests in their tools.

I have never said that. However, since you decided to go that direction. I can bite and entertain you. Here is a list of programmers, some of them I'm sure you'd even recognize. Donald Knuth, Rob Pike, Ken Thompson, Steve Yegge, Gary Bernhardt, Paul Graham, Rich Hickey, Bram Moolenaar, Richard Stallman, Anders Hejlsberg, Guido van Rossum, John Carmack, Tim Pope, Drew Neil, Sindre Sorhus, TJ Holowaychuk, Guillermo Rauch, Ryan Dahl, Fabrice Bellard.

The pattern is clear: many of the best programmers are also prolific tool-builders.

[norir]

I don't even understand what point you are making. The essence of programming is tool making. Of course the best programmers make tools as do the worst. Are you seriously comparing making a terminal hot rod configuration app to, say, creating Tex?

[cole-k]

> I have never said that.

Then I misunderstood your comment. I read it as "not invested in their tools => not a good programmer."

Reading the replies to my sibling comments, I don't think we really disagree but we probably have different pictures in our heads when reading the context of this thread.