|
|
|
|
|
by Tehdasi
1597 days ago
|
|
The reverse is also quite true.
You can get a thing which just seems too slow/fiddly/buggy/etc, but it's in an area where you are unfamiliar with, so you pass it off as just your misunderstanding of the thing. Whenever you investigate more on it, you find that there are ways ppl use it that avoid the problems that you are having with it, or that pieces of the thing make a certain amount of sense the way they are.
Then as you learn more you begin to understand the underlying reason that the thing is the way it is, and you realise that it's not you. Poor decisions were made in the design of the thing initially (or at least decisions which once valued the right things, but now do not), and have become baked into the DNA of the thing so it could not be fixed without major changes that nobody wants to do.
It's at that point, you realize that the emperor has no clothes, and certainly didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. I find this is particularly the case when the design flaw is particularly bad, the developers end up adding complexity to work around the flaw, which has the effect of hiding the flaw, making it alot less obvious to the novice. |
|