5 ms·
The message I got from this article is that there is something deeply satisfying about doing "100 year storm" work, not than that it is economically feasible or
by fusiongyro 14y ago
The message I got from this article is that there is something deeply satisfying about doing "100 year storm" work, not than that it is economically feasible or wise. The reference to woodworking and how unprofitable it is seems to imply that it is inherently uneconomical.
Not everything we build needs "Rolls Royce" level of polish, but it might be nice to build a few things to that level of polish. Compared to the amount of code that is being written, vanishingly little of it, if any, is really being built to stand the test of time, even if it is being built to very high standards.
- ohjeez 14y agoI'm the author of that post. And I certainly did not mean to imply that 100-year-furniture is not economical! It costs more in the short-term (for instance, the Stickley couch I bought was $6,000), but I know it'll last for decades, so I don't begrudge a cent of that expense. Especially since it's so gosh-durn beautiful and comfortable and does exactly what I want -- just as good software does.
- jfoutz 14y agoI got my great grandma's couch reupholstered. The couch itself was free to me and I expect it to outlive me as well. I'm pretty sure she didn't get it new. I'm guessing manufactured in 1880 or so. I dunno. It's pretty comfortable, and as you say, that couch problem is solved.
- fusiongyro 14y agoI'm sorry for both misunderstanding and misrepresenting your argument. I'll have to give a proper response some thought.
- ohjeez 14y agoThank you for such a gracious reply! In turn, I should apologize for writing something that could so easily be misinterpreted.
- fusiongyro 14y agoOh hardly!