|
|
|
|
|
|
by moeris
1349 days ago
|
|
|
> "it works for me" gives very little information about the software you're using. I don't think so. It says that the software satisfies the basic requirements of its target audience, and gives a hint as to who that audience is. On the other hand, if you receive the opinion of some self-proclaimed expert, I think you're receiving less useful information. Experts are typically a small percentage of the userbase, and among experts there can be vastly different opinions depending on their specialty. Ask an Android dev to review vim, and an operating systems dev, and you'll get wildly different responses. If you ask a generalist software developer, you'll likely get less noise. |
|
|
>> "it works for me" gives very little information about the software you're using.
> I don't think so. It says that the software satisfies the basic requirements of its target audience, and gives a hint as to who that audience is.
No, not really. What's the "target audience"? The GGP certainly doesn't say, and wrote a comparison that is meaningless unless you're already very familiar with the software (transforming it into a statement about the particular user), and perhaps misleading if you don't. I could say the exact same thing as him, except about MS Paint, e.g.
Yes, I get desktop Photoshop but I have never had to use any feature in it I couldn't get in MS Paint (I use MS Paint a lot outside of work).
Does that say MS Paint is a powerful program, or that I'm an amateur user? You can't really say unless you already know the programs, since I didn't say anything about the kinds of graphics work I actually do.
> Ask an Android dev to review vim, and an operating systems dev, and you'll get wildly different responses. If you ask a generalist software developer, you'll likely get less noise.
No, you won't get less noise, you'll just get different noise.