Is "gatekeeping" now just another word for making people feel bad? Like "pretentious" or "elitist" has become? Nobody is saying that people with crutches shouldn't be allowed to walk.
edit: It's so strange to not only demand the right to not know how to do something without a complicated tool (a right which is inalienable and not threatened), but to also demand that people who do know how to do that thing not think that it is better to know how to do that thing. I get that when one has invested their time into a tool they want to defend its usage, but people who aren't dependent on a particular vendor's tool have also invested time, and should be able to think it's better to not be dependent on a particular vendor without it being considered violence or bullying (in the modern twitter sense.)
I mean shouldn't you feel bad if you're trying to discourage active engagement in a topic if one doesn't do it in a specific "correct" way?
Personally I've found a diverse set of viewpoints to be incredibly valuable on the teams I've been a part of. I have my own biases on testing, stability, performance and seeing how others approach it has broadened my understanding of how to build software.
To put it another way, the parent could have said "IDEs are awesome and I've found when you combine that with an understanding of the CLI you have an awesome set of tools at your disposal that are greater than the sum of their parts" instead of making it an exclusive trade off or implying that IDEs are limiting.
> instead of making it an exclusive trade off or implying that IDEs are limiting.
But that would be a completely different argument. Their whole point is that there /is/ an exclusive trade-off, which is different from what they're trying to say.
If you want my opinion, they both piss me off, just in different ways. The IDE requires me to use my mouse, even with the best Vim impersonation plugins. I hate that, but I put up with it because the autocomplete, syntax completion and indexing just works so much better than the Vim equivalents which fall apart under heavily load. And conversely, trying to edit remotely complex projects is a nightmare with Vim, no matter which distributions I use.
Which maybe is a different tone of saying exactly what you are saying.
I literally said that "IDEs are great tools" and my whole argument was that people can broaden their understanding by also learning some shell in addition to their IDE.
I'm sure that was your true intent, but the way you framed it made it seem like it was in exclusion(the dismissive "Cool." at the top didn't help).
At the risk of sounding patronizing as much as we'd like to everything to be binary pass/fail and survive on the technical merits or semantic details, how you frame things and driving communication in an inclusive way is important of you want to convince people that something is worthwhile.
I agree, but I can only control how other people understand my words to some degree, especially in a fast paced, low effort forum conversation. The prejudice of the reader will drive their interpretation more than my actual intent.
You can read my comments as gatekeeping or as the exact opposite - an invitation to come through the gate and see what you can learn here and take what is useful to you.
edit: It's so strange to not only demand the right to not know how to do something without a complicated tool (a right which is inalienable and not threatened), but to also demand that people who do know how to do that thing not think that it is better to know how to do that thing. I get that when one has invested their time into a tool they want to defend its usage, but people who aren't dependent on a particular vendor's tool have also invested time, and should be able to think it's better to not be dependent on a particular vendor without it being considered violence or bullying (in the modern twitter sense.)