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.

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.

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.

That said, the "sharp" in "resharper" actually does hint at its Microsoft nature, as it's the same sharp in "csharp"

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 do, of course, customise it for myself.

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.

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.