mirror of
https://github.com/foo-dogsquared/wiki.git
synced 2025-01-31 10:58:28 +00:00
732ef34ca8
Welp, I rarely take notes nowadays due to more specialized work and stuff. Though, I should have more incentives for writing. In other words, I'm just lazy. ;p More free-thinking morning sessions should be done soon.
26 lines
1.6 KiB
Org Mode
26 lines
1.6 KiB
Org Mode
:PROPERTIES:
|
|
:ID: 855fa6b6-bdb4-4d09-b6d4-c9b95e69642c
|
|
:END:
|
|
#+title: Problems with simpler tools
|
|
#+date: 2021-09-16 11:45:21 +08:00
|
|
#+date_modified: 2021-09-16 13:11:29 +08:00
|
|
#+language: en
|
|
|
|
|
|
While [[id:69ec18ec-ae88-4cb8-bf03-299bc5d8a2a5][Simple tools make better workflows]], it can have problems too.
|
|
|
|
- The scope of simpler tools often results in doing the same task with multiple tools compared to less simpler tools.
|
|
This is a sign of the process being too small or atomic.
|
|
In this case, [[roam:All-in-one tools make good explorations]] to look how other tools does it while adding the necessary parts preventing from being too simple.
|
|
|
|
- Consequently, with the plethora of simple tools working together, incidental complexity will arise with the quirks of the tools starting to appear.
|
|
Complexity is inevitable even in simpler tools.
|
|
|
|
- Simple tools can be deceiving.
|
|
C (the programming language), for example, is very simple but hides undefined behaviors.
|
|
This often comes from the consequence of focusing being smaller in scope while being used for bigger use cases.
|
|
This is where complex tools often wins by considering more problems to solve than its simpler counterparts.
|
|
|
|
- With the limited scope, simple tools don't often have good out-of-the-box experience compared to complex tools — e.g., lack of tutorials.
|
|
Though, this depends on the audience and the intended scope — e.g., maybe they [[id:9a11ef31-b2a7-43a9-a7a9-48f191838c6e][Prefer referencing over remembering]], too technical to make it streamlined for general use cases, targeted for expert users.
|