[arcticbull]

I've struggled with this question myself so I'll just put it out: what makes using something that's more powerful than you need - and less expensive - wrong or shameful?

The only product that matters to a customer is one that exists, and if this approach saves you money, lets you prove product market fit, or allows the product to keep existing longer - isn't that more important than the fact the Pi has more parts than you need?

What if the jet ride cost 25% less than the drive? What if they're only using the jet to prove demand exists on the route? Optimization only makes sense in the face of scale, but you need to get to the scale first.

[superdisk]

My lament is more about the unrelenting desire to degrade software from being robust, well designed, and fit for the task, to fungible slop pouring out of a pipe from whoever is cheapest. In no other profession (architecture, construction, teaching, anything) would that mentality be tolerated.

The unnecessarily wasteful hardware is just one of the (ultimately more benign) side effects of that.

[cinntaile]

> In no other profession (architecture, construction, teaching, anything) would that mentality be tolerated.

This is exactly what happens in other industries as well, it is not a software only problem.

[zamadatix]

I think all of the areas you listed have the same desire pushed on them. Maybe even more so than in software. Being able to universally seek products or services that are not cost optimized is an extremely rare opportunity. Most everyone grapples with scarcity of some type before they grapple with not having the most robust and well fit option every time.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

The phrase that I've cautioned other engineers with over the years is "you don't get extra points for making it harder."

You really don't. And in most cases, making it harder means that you're probably making it buggier.