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

161–170 of 196 posts

Re: The worst tool for the job

#161

Post by wruza »

Swizec wrote: post #90
PaulHoule wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are millions of magic spreadsheets that kill people's will to live, lead businesses to make billion dollar bad decisions, etc. (We need weapons of mass construction, but spreadsheets-as-we-know-them are weapons of mass destruction.)

Billion dollar spreadsheet is a little late. Build real code around the 100k level

This is a great advice, but the human nature prevents two things. First, you never do it at the right time. Second, you cut corners which would heavily affect the ease or even a possibility of such transition. I spent half my work life unfucking spreadsheets into databases and usually it is nuances and misstructure all the way down. You have to be a genius software developer and a master of discipline to be able to turn your sheets to code in zero years. Add some collaborators and it's over. The ability to make a formula in a cell instead of a column is a formula for disaster.

If I was looking for the worst tool for a poor man's ERP, I would consider phpMyAdmin or a similar "data studio" tool, but not a spreadsheet. There are plenty, all ready for a frontend to be written in place of them.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#162

Post by Harlekuin »

klodolph wrote: post #64
itsoktocry wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have one pair of designer sunglasses that I picked up on sale. They are comfortable to the point that I can barely feel them. They also look really good. I also have a ton of $10 sunglasses from street vendors and online stores. For my taste, all the mid-range sunglasses are super boring and make you look boring. Great for going out and meeting other boring people. Everything cool is either some cheapo monstrosity…

> all the mid-range sunglasses are super boring and make you look boring. Great for going out and meeting other boring people.

Found this comment rubbed me the wrong way - seems insane to me to judge the boringness of a person by the price of their sunglasses

Re: The worst tool for the job

#163

Post by analog31 »

guerrilla wrote: post #151
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…

If you think about it, the text editor for diagrams actually is mid range because you could alternatively do the using "echo", enter it in binary, even on punch cards or pen and paper.

I do all of my diagrams by drawing them with a pencil and taking a picture with my cell phone. Often, some engineer takes offense and enters it into a drawing or CAD program -- problem solved!

Re: The worst tool for the job

#164

Post by smoll »

ubercow13 wrote: post #145
z3t4 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally felt the pain though. And could appreciate the more expensive gear. But I agree with your point. In cross country skieing its much more fun if you have better gear. Some sports and professions is just gear dependent. You won't win a rally with a slow car.

It’s not just feeling the difference, it’s preventing injury and allowing yourself to progress at a speed which keeps you interested at all. I only finally started running regularly after years of trying and failing after buying proper shoes. The difference was immediate.

What made you keep trying running even though you failed multiple times at it? And had you failed even with excellent running shoes, would you have even kept trying? (Maybe you would have thought: "Well, I already have the best shoes. If I still can't get good, maybe I should give up forever.")

Re: The worst tool for the job

#165

Post by porknubbins »

projektfu wrote: post #159
tikhonj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is harder than it sounds because the bottom of the market is often well below a minimum viable level, to the point that you're actively making learning harder for yourself if you go there. You might not feel the difference between $100 and $1000 shoes, but Walmart has $15 shoes which are probably bad enough they make it harder to start running and learn proper technique. I've experienced this pretty directly wit…

True for bicycles too. The gears get bent by the chain, the tires pop at normal pressure, the brakes don’t stop the bike. Buying the cheapest bike from a reputable bike shop is much better than buying one from Walmart.

This is the example I was thinking of. Target and Walmart bikes are literally toys (not even pejoratively), that won’t hold up well to regular exercise or commuting, but then real entry level bikes are 500 - $700. Tools from Home Depot are a little better because most people don’t use them to build houses so will never notice a hammer that doesn’t perform well.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#166

Post by gumby »

A more practical example than his (ascii drawing) is: always use the system libraries when writing code. “But vector/map/... has too much overhead!” Naah, getting your code working is the hard part. Only if the code survives is it worth looking to see if the standard String code is costing you a lot, which case you can replace it.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#167

Post by [deleted] »

porknubbins wrote: post #165
projektfu wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True for bicycles too. The gears get bent by the chain, the tires pop at normal pressure, the brakes don’t stop the bike. Buying the cheapest bike from a reputable bike shop is much better than buying one from Walmart.

This is the example I was thinking of. Target and Walmart bikes are literally toys (not even pejoratively), that won’t hold up well to regular exercise or commuting, but then real entry level bikes are 500 - $700. Tools from Home Depot are a little better because most people don’t use them to build houses so will never notice a hammer that doesn’t perform well.

[deleted]

Re: The worst tool for the job

#168

Post by labster »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #115
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…

I used to have a friend who did a bit of contractor work, and he swore up and down by Sears “Craftsman” tools; not because they were the best (they were far from it), but because they had the best warranties. Every tool, he claimed, would wear out sooner or later, and Sears would always replace with a brand new one, no questions asked. I think there's some kind of point to be made here about broken economies and wast…

Sears eventually decided that not enough people returned the tools, and eventually started selling low-quality Craftsman products. I bought a water wand for spraying the yard and dog (mainly the dog, he really loved biting the spray), and had to return it 10 times for a replacement over the course of two years. Thing kept breaking in the metal rod. Then they had to give me a different design, got another 10 replacements that consistently broke below the handgrip. Eventually the store down the block from me closed, and Sears sold the Craftsman brand while it still had value.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#169

Post by paulryanrogers »

tikhonj wrote: post #134
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…

This is harder than it sounds because the bottom of the market is often well below a minimum viable level, to the point that you're actively making learning harder for yourself if you go there. You might not feel the difference between $100 and $1000 shoes, but Walmart has $15 shoes which are probably bad enough they make it harder to start running and learn proper technique. I've experienced this pretty directly wit…

While true of plastic, no edge, snowboards it does hold true to a point. Rentals of middling quality and some instruction go a long way to get a rough feel for something before dropping top dollar.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#170

Post by lmm »

user5994461 wrote: post #78
eezurr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

A brand new bike can be as low as €100 highly dependent on current availability and discounts. Cheap bikes are €100-200, maybe up to €250 for an adult man mountain bike. I'm shocked you'd call a $750 bike "cheap" when that's undeniably high end.

> I'm shocked you'd call a $750 bike "cheap" when that's undeniably high end.

It's not. If we're talking about buying new, $750 is about entry level for a real bike from a name-brand manufacturer. If you go to an actual bike store rather than a supermarket, that's what you'll pay. High end is multiple thousands. That's just what they cost, and if you actually use the bike for more than a year then it'll be cheaper in the long run.

Post reply on HN