What's your point? That it's not available for Windows or Linux? The developer behind Quiver is a one-man shop and happens to be an iOS, OS X and web developer. So what?
There seems to be a trend among certain groups of developers to act as if their preferred environment is the only one that exists. Calling this "The Programmer's Notebook" makes it seem like a broadly applicable tool for programmers in general, when it's actually fairly exclusive and specific. There's nothing particularly egregious about this example, but it's part of a larger pattern that is aggravating for any non-kool-aid drinkers.
Edit: to be clear, this isn't specifically about Apple's kool-aid, either. I have the same reaction when people assume every developer is or should be active on GitHub and other similar monocultures.
ReSharper and Visual Studio should be OS X compatible, it's not like every developer is using Windows. Such a monoculture.
See? It goes both ways (which, from your edit, I know you understand, but it's work a specific example). This guy's labor of love is a well crafted, thoughtful application for programmers using OS X. There is zero controversy there. Same with any other OS X-only application that Windows or (Li|U)nix users want.
When we beg for cross-platform apps from developers who don't understand all those platforms, we end up with web-browser-as-platform Electron-based apps that bundle a browser to render their UI layer. Sometimes that's done well (Visual Studio Code is quite nice) - often it's just okay bordering on slow. In fact, it's so rare that high-speed apps are available in some native form for multiple people platforms, I consider it a special gift to use one (Sublime Text comes to mind).
Let's not stifle the creativity and drive that small or single-person developer shops have by suggesting - even passively - that we are entitled to three OS-specific builds of anything they write.
If ReSharper was called "The Programmer's Refactoring Suite" or if Visual Studio were called "The Programmer's IDE" I would see your point.
I'm not simply referring to the decision to target a particular platform. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with having a narrow focus. But please stop pretending it's anything but a narrow focus.
Neither ReSharper nor Visual Studio communicate anything about their environment. That's call setting expectations. There is no expectation of what environment it's to be used with (although ReSharper sounds like c# a lot to me).
The issue with 'The Programmer's Notebook' is that the expectation is set at something like 'This is a notebook that will be generally useful for many types of programmers'. It's like the Physician's Desktop Reference. The name implies that it will be of general usefulness to anyone in that particular field.
So when I see the title 'The Programmer's Notebook', the expectation is that it will be something useful for all types of programming (embedded, linux, bsd, web, native desktop, rtos, etc).
Then the expectation is crushed because it's only usable if you have an apple device. That means a large swath of 'programmers' (whom this notebook is apparently supposed to be for) are not going to have access to it. Thus the whole thesis of the title is invalid. It's not the programmer's notebook, because many/most programmers are not going to be able to use it.
You seem to have missed my point. It's what those names don't communicate that makes them better. They don't make it seem like they're more broadly applicable than they are.
That said, the "sharp" in "resharper" actually does hint at its Microsoft nature, as it's the same sharp in "csharp"
And just to be even clearer, I'm not begging this developer to release their product cross-platform. I'm begging everyone in the developer community to communicate in ways that are less presumptuous. The way we choose to name things is an act of communication, and it seems to have failed in this case.
If this was an actual startup, your point would make sense. But the portfolio is very obviously one guy making tools he personally thought would be useful, polishing them, and then selling them. It isn't fun to create things that you can't actually use, at least in my opinion.
I'm sure if he was making a lot more money he wouldn't hesitate to release for other platforms, because he would be able to to hire someone to do the other platforms
I think it's fun to create anything, especially if it involves programming by myself, outside of a stupid agile environment with Scrum idiots running around preaching the gospel.
I thought you were being overly negative but perhaps had a point about HN. But this is all over the guy's sales pitch on his product page? You're reading way too much into it. It's one thing to complain about a monoculture in a community but another thing entirely to expect a product page to laden itself with anything except for pitching a product as best it can.
Actually I made the comment before that change. But I think I understand why I interpreted your statement that way. The software's page itself says "The Programmer's Notebook" as the page's subtitle and the software's tagline. Presumably whoever submitted it (unless it's the author) probably copied and pasted it. Sorry about that.
"Monocultures" develop because people don't want a fragmented and confusing workflow. One might use a Macbook because more useful tools are on OSX, and in turn might create more tools for OSX, enticing similar users to use OSX, and so on.
You don't have to be active on Github; maybe you can be active on Bitbucket, but you won't get a fraction of the eyes or feedback as you would on Github.
So you're defending monocultures as virtuous? OK then. Don't feel like arguing that point...
But you're also ignoring the massive amounts of money and legal effort made by, e.g. Apple, in order to guarantee that such a monoculture develops. You have to willfully ignore things (like their choice to make non-Apple text messages green instead of blue) in order to claim that it came about organically. There is a concerted effort to create an us vs. them mentality, which always sucks for "them."
Obv. the same isn't true for GitHub., but I don't want to argue the (de)merits of monocultures in general. I take for granted in this thread that they're a bad thing.
I think his point is that if someone writes something, he's entitled to be able to use it on his preferred platform. Or, at least, that's how it comes across.
