> that is dangerous, because you’re likely to overlook some edge case or some unconsidered use case that may come back to bite you later. I know, and that's ex

> that is dangerous, because you’re likely to overlook some edge case or some unconsidered use case that may come back to bite you later. I know, and that's exactly why I don't like it. In my experience, lack of understanding bites you way harder than lack of a single fence. I once worked at a company that had a very complicated patented (!) algorithm to calculate a certain value. Not a single person in the company knew why it was so complicated, and nobody ever questioned it. We would constantly struggle to introduce new rules to it, because they would conflict with the old rules, and it wasn't clear how to resolve those conflicts. Since we didn't understand what value those magical rules provided, there was absolutely no way we could resolve conflicts in a way that retains the original value (if there was any). Eventually I was able to convince everyone and just removed all the rules we didn't understand. Everyone sighed with a relief. In hindsight, I believe the sole reason algorithm was so complicated was that having a patented algorithm would sound more sexy to investors, and you can't patent something stupidly simple.