Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The worst tool for the job

johndcook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: The worst tool for the job

#31

Post by itsoktocry »

cmehdy wrote: post #22
gk1 wrote: post #2

What a great principle. One of those things I've felt for a long time but never express so well as John did. This idea extends to many other things, like... sports equipment. Beginner runners/bikers/skateboarders/whatever will not really feel the difference between equipment that cost $100 and $1,000, so get the cheap one and use it to (its) death. If you're still into the sport by then, go ahead and get the nicer on…

Sometimes you don't know what the minimum viable is because you are a beginner and don't know yourself well in that field. For example, I started running with shoes that were somewhat fine for beginners when I would double-check online, but happened to have limitations that affected people who practice a lot, or people who don't practice properly, or in my case undiagnosed issues (hypermobility of the knee). In my ca…

>In my case getting those shoes with too much shock absorption was actually dangerous because it prevented the feedback loop of auto-correction from being built. This led to some habits that I didn't notice were bad and later on led to a pain in my knee that has, despite my best efforts and much rest over the last 8 years, entirely prevented me from the freedom of running.

It seems like you're drawing a direct causal relationship to what is a very complex chain of events over a long period of time. How can you be sure the problems would not have arisen regardless of what tool (shoe) you originally bought?

Re: The worst tool for the job

#32

Post by DizzyDoo »

Sometimes using less-than-the-best tools directly leads to better products with smoother development cycles. I'm an indie games developer and I develop on a machine that is the 'Minimum Hardware Requirements' for my games. So, if you visit the Steam page for my current game, the Minimum Requirements are just the specs of my computer, which would be considered mid-range when I built it in 2016, and now is very underpowered.

The plus-side to all of this is I know my game runs well on lower spec hardware. There's a confidence that I have that it'll perform decently on 99% of computers and laptops/macbooks. If something runs slowly then I know I can't fudge things in the release build by assuming/hoping it'll run okay on the majority of computres, but I also know that if I do need to optimise something then it's not premature, unnecessary optimisation, which helps me use my time properly.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#33

Post by claydavisss »

Who other than a dilettante or a tinkerer has enough time on their hands to indulge some strange masochistic urge to use obviously-worse tools? John probably doesn't have anything in his life that needs to be done right away so he can navel-gaze like this. The rest of us need to get things done. I haven't spent thirty years in this industry just to throw away progress and the last minute and wear a hairshirt for the yucks.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#34

Post by itsoktocry »

klodolph wrote: post #4

Eh, something to be said for mid-range too. I have a 12v cordless drill. Ended up saving me tons of work over the years but by no means either the best or the worst. Musical instruments. The low-end ones tend to be true disasters. Mid-range CPUs and GPUs are wonderful. Kitchen mixers, knives, screwdrivers, soldering irons, drill presses, etc. Plenty of times the worst tool is so obviously terrible that you probably s…

>Musical instruments. The low-end ones tend to be true disasters.

For "hobby" items, it's mostly about developing habits. You don't need top-of-the-line equipment to "make music". Once you enjoying the art of making music, you can easily move on to bigger and better equipment.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#35

Post by eezurr »

klodolph wrote: post #4

Eh, something to be said for mid-range too. I have a 12v cordless drill. Ended up saving me tons of work over the years but by no means either the best or the worst. Musical instruments. The low-end ones tend to be true disasters. Mid-range CPUs and GPUs are wonderful. Kitchen mixers, knives, screwdrivers, soldering irons, drill presses, etc. Plenty of times the worst tool is so obviously terrible that you probably s…

On Bicycles: I've ridden cheap bikes ( $Yesterday I went to my local Trek store and rode a $2500 bike for the first time, and it was a joy to ride. I didn't know gear changes could be so accurate/seamless/instant. First time I rode with disc brakes: I feel way more in control when I need to stop at high speed. The frame fit my body perfectly. Obviously the bike will wear down like cheaper bikes, but the difference is night and day.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#36

Post by bosie »

DizzyDoo wrote: post #32

Sometimes using less-than-the-best tools directly leads to better products with smoother development cycles. I'm an indie games developer and I develop on a machine that is the 'Minimum Hardware Requirements' for my games. So, if you visit the Steam page for my current game, the Minimum Requirements are just the specs of my computer, which would be considered mid-range when I built it in 2016, and now is very underpo…

Though this seems only relevant if running on lower spec hardware (mid range 2016 machines) is actually relevant to the product. If it isn't and customer would rather have better graphics at a higher cost of running it, you are developing against a metric of success which is unfortunately wrong.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#37

Post by itsoktocry »

3pt14159 wrote: post #20

I do this a different way. I think about how much I'm going to use something and try my best to over-invest in what is typically cheap and could last years and under-invest (or avoid all together) in what is expensive or could last less than a year. Pen: Very expensive. Sunglasses: Very expensive. Phone: Very expensive. Laptop: Very expensive. Shoes / most clothing: Midrange, since they don't last long, but they're n…

>Sunglasses: Very expensive.

This one is confusing. Sunglasses are 90% fashion. What exactly are you getting with an expensive pair?

I take the opposite route. Cheap sunglasses that I'm unconcerned about dropping, sitting on, or leaving behind.

Post reply on HN