[sneak]

Any time your proposal entails a “why not just”, it is almost certainly underestimating the mental abilities of the people and teams who implemented it.

A good option is “what would happen if we” instead of anything involving the word “just”.

[qazxcvbnmlp]

“Just” usually implies a lack of understanding of the problem space in question. If someone says “solution X” was considered because of these factors which lead to these tradeoffs however since then fundamental assumption Y has changed which allows this new solution then it’s very interesting.

[jknoepfler]

Sure. When I ask "why don't we just" I'm suggesting that the engineering solutions on the table sound over-engineered to the task, and I'm asking why we aren't opting for a straightforward, obvious, simple solution. Sometimes the answer is legitimate complexity. Equally as often, especially with less experienced engineers, the answer is that they started running with a shiny and didn't back up and say "why don't we just..." themselves.

[PittleyDunkin]

Counterfactuals strike me as even less useful than underestimating competency would be. Surely basic double-entry accounting (necessarily implying the use of ledgers) should be considered table stakes for fintech competency.

[foobarbecue]

Lots of threads on this here, most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42038139#42038572 . I think this example is perfect, with the "oughta do it"