4 ms·

Well, the correct answer is often also "They did it that way because it was a reasonable choice then, and they didn't have the benefit of hindsight that I have

• bloaf 10y ago
  Its also possible that whatever constraint they were working around no longer exists. Either way, it's a case of not tearing down a fence before you know why it was put up. G.K. Chesterton, 1929: >In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
  • empthought 10y ago
    In my experience Sturgeon's Law usually overrules Chesterton's fence.