> It is rather simple: The tools don't matter.
Its hard to read past nonsense like this.
Its hard to read past nonsense like this.
Once you're familiar with a tool, the simple act of moving to another tool will be what slows you down, but you'll get back up to speed soon enough.
The only place tool choice really matters is when you're part of a team who has to pass their work around. If you're not using the same tool - whichever tool it may be - it adds needless friction.
(stuck, w/plenty of hardware and electricity, that is)
Anyways. Could we re-create our programming tools? Eventually. So long as we have a computer and a whole lot of time. Bootstrapping a programming language to create an operating system's going to be a real bear though.
Now then, making those tools efficient (namely optimizing compilers) and safe is going to take a whole lot of time and brainpower.
Similarly, compare the computers of the 60's (or even the 80's) to the computers of today. The difference in outcomes reflects the difference in capabilities.
Technology (gained throughout history) moreso than tools. For example, the Romans had concrete, (and it's a kind we still use occasionally), but we have about 1,000 different types of concrete, all with different mechanical properties and capabilities.
We have concrete water can flow freely through. We have concrete (well, more accurately techniques of building concrete forms) which has strength in tension. We have concrete which can bend, we have concrete which is astoundingly light. We have concrete we can can pump, and we have concrete which we can mechanically compact.
But when it comes to tools - aside from transporting concrete - we still use forms, screeding boards, and trowels in a dozen different shapes. Even the best concrete surfacing tools are trowels spun with a motor.
Once tool quality passes a certain threshold, it the user that matters.