Both Jonathan Blow and Casey Muratori have a history of being toxic and dismissive in their own right. I can’t really fault Microsoft here because of how argumentative and arrogant Casey has acted in the past. And Jonathan should have stayed out of this whole thing.
They are both incredibly talented. I've watched dozens of hours of them programming and really enjoy their streams.
They are also both kind of assholes. Some people love that about them. I've certainly found myself really enjoying many of their rants.
Casey was pleasant enough in the github thread but he was less generous in his streams about this. He really did not like being talked down to (who would?) and spent a long time mocking them. They clearly did not know who Casey was or they probably wouldn't have tried to explain his concerns away (especially when they were wrong).
If you don't see arrogance on Casey's side though then I suspect you haven't watched enough of his streams. While he's very humble and will go out of his way to say when he doesn't know something, he's very arrogant in the subjects he knows well and will very openly mock anyone who isn't doing things as well as he expects them to (in an abstract sense, he doesn't really target individuals).
I find his attitude so frustrating sometimes because he clearly loves teaching and I can't think of another single programmer more generous with their time and knowledge but at the same time he cannot abide anyone not at his level.
I'm a fan of Casey and I really like Windows Terminal (compared to what we had before especially). This whole thing was not a good look for either side but on the plus side, Windows Terminal is now closer to being at Casey's level so I guess he ultimately won. I just wish instead he'd tried to contribute his ideas to Windows Terminal instead of spending hours programming his own toy terminal whose whole existence was to mock them. I don't think he has it in him to lower himself to that though.
To be fair, he did try to contribute. One of the posts in the original Github thread was a reasonably detailed explanation of how to do what he was proposing, and it was dismissed as a "PHD level deep dive in to text rendering" or something similar.
I tend to agree with you on about how the 2 of them choose to communicate their opinions at times, but honestly in this case I think it was fully warranted.
It's gone on for almost a year now. Some initial response was warranted but IMO continuing to bring this up is reflecting poorly on Casey at this point.
They're both new versions of an ancient archetype of IT. When they are correct, it seems that their priority is being correct, rather than productively informing others.
This attitude ignores a fundamental truth of any industry; "perfect" is the enemy of "finished", and if I can get to "good enough to ship" without having smug perfectionists on my team, then I won't have them on my team.
The above reasoning is altered if the smug perfectionist is a totally unique and unreplaceable talent, or if the project truly requires a degree of perfectionism (e.g. medical devices, avionics). But that's... largely not what Blow and Casey talk about...
Given that, my response to these guys is to paraphrase Mark Twain: sorry I wrote a complicated program, I didn't have time to write a simple one.
> (4) Casey sits down and writes termbench, to illustrate his point (https://github.com/cmuratori/termbench); it is indeed orders of magnitude faster than Windows Terminal, and proves his point decisively.
This is actually pretty interesting. Is there something similar specifically for linux?
tweet deleted, but this gem https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/case-study-how-ma... is full of "simply" and "just", quite surprising considering "describing something that might be considered an entire doctoral research project in performant terminal emulation as “extremely simple” somewhat combatively". Someone is owed apology.
Both Jonathan Blow and Casey Muratori have a history of being toxic and dismissive in their own right. I can’t really fault Microsoft here because of how argumentative and arrogant Casey has acted in the past. And Jonathan should have stayed out of this whole thing.
All I see here is competence on the side of Blow and Casey. Incompetence and arrogance on the side of Microsoft.
They are both incredibly talented. I've watched dozens of hours of them programming and really enjoy their streams.
They are also both kind of assholes. Some people love that about them. I've certainly found myself really enjoying many of their rants.
Casey was pleasant enough in the github thread but he was less generous in his streams about this. He really did not like being talked down to (who would?) and spent a long time mocking them. They clearly did not know who Casey was or they probably wouldn't have tried to explain his concerns away (especially when they were wrong).
If you don't see arrogance on Casey's side though then I suspect you haven't watched enough of his streams. While he's very humble and will go out of his way to say when he doesn't know something, he's very arrogant in the subjects he knows well and will very openly mock anyone who isn't doing things as well as he expects them to (in an abstract sense, he doesn't really target individuals).
I find his attitude so frustrating sometimes because he clearly loves teaching and I can't think of another single programmer more generous with their time and knowledge but at the same time he cannot abide anyone not at his level.
I'm a fan of Casey and I really like Windows Terminal (compared to what we had before especially). This whole thing was not a good look for either side but on the plus side, Windows Terminal is now closer to being at Casey's level so I guess he ultimately won. I just wish instead he'd tried to contribute his ideas to Windows Terminal instead of spending hours programming his own toy terminal whose whole existence was to mock them. I don't think he has it in him to lower himself to that though.
To be fair, he did try to contribute. One of the posts in the original Github thread was a reasonably detailed explanation of how to do what he was proposing, and it was dismissed as a "PHD level deep dive in to text rendering" or something similar.
I tend to agree with you on about how the 2 of them choose to communicate their opinions at times, but honestly in this case I think it was fully warranted.
It's gone on for almost a year now. Some initial response was warranted but IMO continuing to bring this up is reflecting poorly on Casey at this point.
Did MS every truly apologize and try to make amends?
Being dismissive and condescending to someone with more domain expertise who is trying to help you, a trillion dollar company, for free, is a lot.
They're both new versions of an ancient archetype of IT. When they are correct, it seems that their priority is being correct, rather than productively informing others.
This attitude ignores a fundamental truth of any industry; "perfect" is the enemy of "finished", and if I can get to "good enough to ship" without having smug perfectionists on my team, then I won't have them on my team.
The above reasoning is altered if the smug perfectionist is a totally unique and unreplaceable talent, or if the project truly requires a degree of perfectionism (e.g. medical devices, avionics). But that's... largely not what Blow and Casey talk about...
Given that, my response to these guys is to paraphrase Mark Twain: sorry I wrote a complicated program, I didn't have time to write a simple one.
Why is it wrong to spend hours programming something to show up a big corp that refuses to take steps to improve its own products?
So you're excusing Microsoft's poor or even abhorrent response because Jonathan and Casey may have been difficult in the past? What the fuck.
> have a history
eh? so?
> should have stayed out
eh? why?
> (4) Casey sits down and writes termbench, to illustrate his point (https://github.com/cmuratori/termbench); it is indeed orders of magnitude faster than Windows Terminal, and proves his point decisively.
This is actually pretty interesting. Is there something similar specifically for linux?
I think you included the right parenthesis with the link. It's giving 404. Could you edit it?
Ah you're right! Unfortunately I can no longer edit my comment.
For anybody wondering, this is the correct url by itself: https://github.com/cmuratori/termbench
Further discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31284419
tweet deleted, but this gem https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/case-study-how-ma... is full of "simply" and "just", quite surprising considering "describing something that might be considered an entire doctoral research project in performant terminal emulation as “extremely simple” somewhat combatively". Someone is owed apology.
Am I the only one that only gets "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else." when clicking the link?
Blow deleted the tweet.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220506173149/https://twitter.c...