4 ms·

> Just because everyone uses it for that purpose doesn't automatically make it the best tool or the right tool for the job. On the contrary, in many domains in

> Just because everyone uses it for that purpose doesn't automatically make it the best tool or the right tool for the job. On the contrary, in many domains in life the right tool for the job is almost always going to be the one that everyone is already using. It's usually not the most satisfying tool or the most elegant, and its use will usually make perfectionists scream, but if you're actually interested in getting anything done you'll default to using the tool that the human beings in the system are already comfortable with unless it would be completely impossible to do so. As another example: the NEMA connector is objectively bad compared to modern alternatives, but it's not going anywhere. The benefits of standardization usually outweigh the benefits of optimization, and you usually don't benefit from being the first to move to the "better" solution. (I realize that last part is difficult to swallow for a forum that's focused on startups trying to disrupt the existing, standardized tech.)

elmerfud 2y ago
I would disagree that in many domains that this makes this the right choice. The domain scope that it makes "already known" the default right choice is generally when you're choosing short-term cost optimization over all other options. This is what Excel has fallen into. It has not produced a better outcomes it has arguably produced worse outcomes. Because the idea of bloat is a real thing. When your sole goal is short-term thinking, and I don't believe this is Microsoft's goal but this is the user's goal that they're catering to, you get tools like Excel. It feels like a cost reduction because you're not having to retrain people you're not having to hire people who are interested in learning and interested in finding out new things. Microsoft is happy to do it because when you hit the functional limits of that tool or you have devised something so idiotically complex in that tool that no one else can understand it and you've forgotten yourself how to understand it there's a whole suite of consultants ready to take your money. So your short-term cost optimization has resulted in a long-term expense.

elmerfud 2y ago

I would disagree that in many domains that this makes this the right choice. The domain scope that it makes "already known" the default right choice is generally when you're choosing short-term cost optimization over all other options. This is what Excel has fallen into. It has not produced a better outcomes it has arguably produced worse outcomes. Because the idea of bloat is a real thing. When your sole goal is short-term thinking, and I don't believe this is Microsoft's goal but this is the user's goal that they're catering to, you get tools like Excel. It feels like a cost reduction because you're not having to retrain people you're not having to hire people who are interested in learning and interested in finding out new things. Microsoft is happy to do it because when you hit the functional limits of that tool or you have devised something so idiotically complex in that tool that no one else can understand it and you've forgotten yourself how to understand it there's a whole suite of consultants ready to take your money. So your short-term cost optimization has resulted in a long-term expense.