3 ms·
For me, it depends on the tool. If I think the tool is internally cohesive, and the underlying reasons for its behavior are sound, I'll learn about them it and
by lallysingh 15y ago
For me, it depends on the tool. If I think the tool is internally cohesive, and the underlying reasons for its behavior are sound, I'll learn about them it and try to figure out its behavior.
If I think the tool is a sloppy stack of hacks, I don't care how it works --- I actively avoid the nightmare. I don't want to spend my time figuring out which bad decisions, bugs, and corner cases made it behave in a certain way.
- 5hoom 15y agoI think you make an excellent point. Tools that are "internally cohesive" reward the effort put into learning them. Knowledge gained learning one function of an internally cohesive tool can often be applied to others, opening up new functionality and encouraging you to learn more about the tool. This way your understanding of good tools tends to grow organically instead of the jarring pile of rote-learning that a kludgy tool tends to require.
- aangjie 15y ago// I actively avoid the nightmare. I don't want to spend my time figuring out which bad decisions, bugs, and corner cases made it behave in a certain way. I usually do that too. But am beginning to wonder, if i should not. If only to understand bad design decisions made by others and be wary of making them my work.