Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> The problem is that a lot of crufty old systems evolved to deal with a crazy number of edge cases that no longer exist.

Totally true! But it's usually a lot easier to factor those cases out than to rebuild the entire thing from zero.

> It's important to be able to tell the difference between something which is complicated because it's dealing with a complicated problem and something which is complicated because it's hot garbage.

My rule-of-thumb here is "If you have to force people to use it over alternatives, you can safely throw it out. And possibly not even bother replacing it."

> So if you want to solve homelessness, all you have to do is solve mental health, unemployment, drug policy and zoning. And then six other problems that caused six other people to be homeless.

If you want to solve all homelessness, sure.

But there is something to be said for helping fix real problems, for real people, now. To make the world that tiny bit better. And in doing so, you gain a more nuanced view of the problem you are solving, which makes you better at proposing and evaluating proposed solutions.

I think too many people end up in this weird place where you have to solve either all of the problem, or none of the problem -- evolutionary change just doesn't seem to be on the table.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: