3 ms·
If that's all it was then I wouldn't bother to bring it up. What I'm saying is that more focus on the beauty of a solution (e.g robustness, scalability, flexibi
by placebo 10y ago
If that's all it was then I wouldn't bother to bring it up. What I'm saying is that more focus on the beauty of a solution (e.g robustness, scalability, flexibility, simplicity) can be a more financially sound solution in the long run than brute force. Of course, I'm not holding my breath for this to become the norm since using brute force to "get what we want now" is popular because it gets fast results (and this not limited to the software industry) - I'm just suggesting the real costs come later.
As for explaining being a tough skill - what I find in common with the previous point is the lack of stress on keeping things as simple and obvious as possible. If you truly understand something, you should be able to convey that understanding assuming you really want to - it just takes investment, usually by asking yourself why it is obvious to you, then putting yourself in the other party's shoes and then finding the shortest and clearest path to bring them from where they are to where you are. In my experience it's not a tough skill - just requires introspection into your own understanding and not assuming anything about what the other person understands.
- taeric 10y agoI was not trying to dismiss what you said. If anything, I was condensing it into my understanding. The basis is not that brute force is better. The essence is most of us are not seeking an elegant solution to a problem. We are seeking a solution to a problem. Often, just getting that answer is all that matters. Finding a more concise way to get it is something I fully agree that someone should be trying to do. And, in the long term, it is a huge boon if it is found. For most tasks, though, the original solution is all that was needed.