Electronics > Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff

Projects to find the limits of what is possible right now?

<< < (5/10) > >>

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 24, 2019, 05:47:43 pm ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 24, 2019, 12:02:04 pm ---I often spend time creating better tools just because even minor deficiencies in existing tools annoy me when I know how those deficiencies can be fixed/overcome/avoided

--- End quote ---
Is something defective because it can't be operated in the middle of a blast furnace?
--- End quote ---
I think it is, if and only if I suspect I would like to operate it in the middle of a blast furnace, and I know how to make it safe to operate in the middle of a blast furnace.

Please, do not confuse this with NIH.  It also isn't just OCD or perfectionism.  I only perceive defects when the defect limits or negatively impacts me, and I know how to avoid that defect.


--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 24, 2019, 05:47:43 pm ---While you may have invented methods to improve the tools you are using, are you sure you didn't make them less perfect for another user who has a different application or a different approach to the problem?
--- End quote ---
The pool of tools is not a limited one.  The tools I create do not "supersede" or replace anything, so your question does not apply.

Elsewhere, I do keep harping about maintainability (readability and modifiability of a tool) and the importance of documentation, and comments describing developer intent in code.  So, if you meant something along the lines of "how do you ensure users are not confused by choice, and know when to choose a tool of your design, rather than something else?", my response is "by documenting the tool well, and noting the important differences when showing the usage information".


--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 24, 2019, 05:47:43 pm ---just pointing out that there are many different itches to scratch out there, and not all of them match yours.  And maybe to direct some of your OCD into a "perfect" understanding of all of the users of a given product and their requirements and desires.  Which is necessary to "perfect" a tool for a market broader than one.
--- End quote ---
That assumes humans are rational, and are always willing to adopt a better tool.  They are not.  You see, I have in fact done that sort of workflow optimization and tool customization as well.  It is fun and rewarding, until you get hit by the stupidity and inertia in doing things the old way by typical human beings.

Thing is, humans are surprisingly attached to the ways of performing tasks they have learned to do by rote, and see any change as dangerous.  Job Safety and all.  Often, when they say something is performing poorly, they mean they have read about this new fad and would like you to find them an excuse to partake in that fad.

If it wasn't for that, I'd probably be doing that sort of workflow optimization/problem solving/tool customization stuff for a living.

It might be different in businesses elsewhere in the world, but this is unfortunately the situation in Finland, and I do not want to emigrate.  (As an example, it is accepted as normal for large IT projects to fail without any end product or repercussions to the consultants or providers; so much so that only a third or so of large IT projects actually produce anything.  That is not just with government stuff; it applies just as well in the business world.  It is a very good time to be a CEO of a big IT consulting company, with a small group of flashy consultants to make a good initial impression, a group of technical writers exclusively writing bids, and offshore the actual production to recent graduates in India and Indonesia.  As long as you keep your public image shiny and keep the politicians well lubricated, the money keeps flowing in like crazy.  Pity that I look like a potato, and would rather live as a hermit in the back woods, than do that sort of a job again.)

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 24, 2019, 06:13:46 pm ---another example - is it good design to make something robust and maintainable in a rapidly changing technology area?
--- End quote ---
On the software side:

Yes, iff you make it modular too.

The idea is to assume change, and that changes will be needed at some point down the line.  Trying to cater for all possible needs up front is a bad idea, though, because guesswork is unreliable.  Instead, you look at the real existing needs, and cater for those, and try to do it in a way that makes it easy to adjust the behaviour later.  Usually that means splitting the task at hand into several different small tools or libraries you use in combination.

Unix philosophy, the KISS principle, and minimalist approach to computing seem to work.

I don't know how any of that translates to electronics, though.

coppercone2:
imo 'not designing something right because of changing technology' is basically punishing an existing industry.

1) you cant tell the future (so your boss is a gambler)
2) its low quality regardless
3) when you make something nice people use it and it resists change or is incorporated into something else.

I don't believe in it but I am sure it does not fit with your corporate quarterly culture. What you don't see is that dave jones is going to get a heart attack reviewing that garbage produced with this philosophy.


I can see it being done as a custom request for someone saying we are migrating to this process in 2 years and we need a stopgap measure etc. But don't design a 'all arounder' , market it as a all rounder, and then build it for one particular industry. Like, I gotta talk to the sales guy to find out its a piece of shit designed to keep some hack running? 'we built it at reduced cost because our main customer...' (when it breaks on you) yea then just market it to your main customer privately. I should never know about it then and I should not be able to buy it. Otherwise its deceptive sales practice. The fuck do I care about your intended market? i gotta study the entire industry to figure out if you are trying to sell some low quality shit because someone might change something in 2 years because of something you overheard at some trade room toilet stall?

Nominal Animal:
Well, there is nothing inherently wrong in designing a short-lived gadget that barely does what its sales pitch promises.

There is also nothing inherently wrong in using human hair to make a soy sauce analog, or extracting proteins from human fecal waste for use in food production, as long as the end result is clean and of acceptable quality for human consumption.

coppercone2:
that might get you killed

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod