|
|
|
|
|
by jariel
2032 days ago
|
|
How would one justify literally building something that someone has done very well, so that you can learn, literally by building something that's probably not as good. I mean, on one's own time, this seems like rather a good thing to do. But to say "Yeah, instead of something that works now 0 days work let's spend 3 months building something that may not work very well and we have to maintain" - is not a reasonable premise in most scenarios. It defies the very point of trade specialization upon literally which the economy is built. So while we should always be learning, learning in and of itself in most instances is not a good enough reason to do something at least at work. |
|
I find that strong opinions either way on this question to be indicative of time preference. My own view is there's a time to do it and there's a time to avoid it. It becomes very valuable when ones navigating an unfamiliar area or is in the midst of a fundamental shift in the landscape. It's best to avoid it if the team or project is an a do-or-die scenario where certain milestones must be met to ensure it remains a viable team or project.