That's not what I meant, electric dragon. That part is well understood. I fully understand conceptually what is being discussed. I meant, specifically, if anything. Regardless, thanks.
I had a lot to say about the subject early on, myself, as reflected in my posts, a lot of which alluded to some of the same ideas that are in your post—not verbatim but essentially the same. I'm moreover just pointing out that there seems to be various tangents going on with people being very specific about what types of "tools" they derive from the original poster's comments with others interpreting the discussion to be about something else, albeit somewhat interrelated.
It's becoming a very generalized and broad topic, and ever more vague. Discussions seemingly go awry quickly when "software" becomes an all encompassing catch-all term to mean everything written in a programming language except hardware samplers who's OSes themselves are in the nomenclature of "software" also—even though the impact of it's hardware can often affect workflow and fidelity—and when hardware becomes more a definition of tactile interfacing rather than analog electronics and sonics.
If it is a generalized discussion about humans interfacing with tools then all tools should be called into question, not just software vs hardware. There hasn't been much comparison between "hardware" vs "hardware" except, I believe, by one poster. So, it seems that it's more of a discussion about software vs hardware, not just tools. With that, I was just curious at this point as to what the original poster was initially referring to, if anything specific at all.
Anyone who says
this is better than
that in a sweeping entirety with no particular discernment, themselves are a tool. So, we have to at least be talking about something particular within some spectrum of definition. That's what I meant.
missed that one 
hate away L dawg everyone deserve a bit of hate 
