18 ms·
It's that kind of rationalization to spend more money that makes other people rich, and I read variations of your justification on HN all the time. A 2% increa
by thoughtcriminal 14y ago
It's that kind of rationalization to spend more money that makes other people rich, and I read variations of your justification on HN all the time.
A 2% increase isn't very good IMO. I'd rather look for other efficiencies that won't cost me more money.
- tomlu 14y agoI don't see what is wrong with that justification. Unless you are saying that he/she is incorrect I don't see why you wouldn't opt for that productivity increase, as long as (salary * perf_increase) > total cost. If you are saying there are efficiencies elsewhere for which that formula yields a higher number then you should do those as well.
- thoughtcriminal 14y agoI should state that there is nothing wrong with charging money for upgrades, especially if it motivates the developer to continuously improve the product. And yes, you are right. Every bit counts, and I'm willing to pay for software that will help me. I just don't think it gets much better for me and ST.
- chaz 14y ago> A 2% increase isn't very good IMO. I'd rather look for other efficiencies that won't cost me more money. A 2% improvement is a week's worth of effort in a year at a full time job. Even a small improvement will be worth it unless there's a larger opportunity cost (such as using a substitute text editor that will yield even larger improvements), or if there's a risk of something going wrong (such as it being buggy and wiping out a week's worth of work). There's also switching costs of learning new features, which may be significant, depending on what you do and how you you'd use it. You should obviously make your own choice, but the rationalization can be valid, and 2% productivity improvement is nothing to sneeze at.