4 ms·
I thought the moral was going to be that accommodating toiletless cars cost more than simply building all cars with toilets.
by forapurpose 8y ago
I thought the moral was going to be that accommodating toiletless cars cost more than simply building all cars with toilets.
- squirrelicus 8y agoI feel like that's still the point irrespective of Dijkstra's apparent view on the parable. Creating exceptional cases is the best way to increase costs.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- djsumdog 8y agoYea, that's where I thought it was going too. I've been on a lot of project lately that try to pre-optimize instead of building a solution and then determining where the bottlenecks are. A lot of times when we try to build for speed, the real bottlenecks are no where we think they'd logically be.
- neilwilson 8y agoThere's politics involved as well. The solution creates units that all have toilets without countermanding the commercial directors initial edict. Programmers sometimes have to triangulate too.
- mcguire 8y agoWith the end solution, a passenger is only one car length from a toilet (which would be the case if toilets are at the end of cars for structural reasons anyway) and they only pay for toilets in half of the cars.
- ben509 8y agoI think he understates the cost of putting a toilet in a car, as it takes up space that could accommodate fare-paying passengers.