there's no escape! brew another cup!
-
This post did not contain any content.
All those wheels made without any unit tests. What was humanity thinking?
-
Does the wheel fall under any cumbersome non free licenses or patents? If I want to modify this wheel to suit my needs, then share that work and information with others, am I free to do so?
The wheel is Open Domain and does not belong to anyone.
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Or as I've recently taken to calling it, saw plus trap"
-
This post did not contain any content.
As if I don't have a stash of previously reinvented wheels to choose from in my personal code. Buuuut, who can resist reinventing the wheel for the 25th time?
-
This post did not contain any content.
One of the worst parts about this is that I would never have thought about reinventing it until he told me not to.
Bloody reverse psychology still working on me.
-
Yes, let's not reinvent any wheels to save time and money. What? Why do you have to use three different screens from two different applications to get the information you need for one shipment invoice? Because we didn't reinvent any wheels. You're welcome.
The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented, meanwhile a certain wheel is pushing for the complete removal of adblocks in its extensions.
Probably not fair to equate that piece of software as a wheel, or better yet, let's just reinvent it with the Adblock.
-
Does the wheel fall under any cumbersome non free licenses or patents? If I want to modify this wheel to suit my needs, then share that work and information with others, am I free to do so?
If I want to modify this wheel to suit my needs
Steepled fingers
Evil laughing
Another victim!!!
-
Yes, let's not reinvent any wheels to save time and money. What? Why do you have to use three different screens from two different applications to get the information you need for one shipment invoice? Because we didn't reinvent any wheels. You're welcome.
Why do you have to use three different screens from two different applications to get the information you need for one shipment invoice? Because
we didn’t reinvent any wheelseveryone has a bespoke wheel design and there's no interoperability or uniform interface.FTFY
-
This post did not contain any content.
But it doesn't conform to every cars specifications! A new standard must be invented!
-
This post did not contain any content.
We'd rather re-create reality where we know everything rather than taking the time to learn how to use a system someone else wrote.
IT and DevOPS does this too.
I worked with a group once that re-invented XML so that non-technical people could create text-based rules instead of writing code. But it ended up with a somewhat rigid naming structure with control characters and delimiters. The non technical people hated it more the actual XML they had used prior.
-
unjerk: pretty bold to compare software to a wheel. it's more so like some roughly rollable shape which is why some people think they can make it more rollable, and yes those people fail from time to time
The wheel of the metaphor-of-thing-as-wheel exists and is widely understood, but apparently needed to be reinvented as a metaphor involving a roughly rollable shape?
Challenge failed.
-
We'd rather re-create reality where we know everything rather than taking the time to learn how to use a system someone else wrote.
IT and DevOPS does this too.
I worked with a group once that re-invented XML so that non-technical people could create text-based rules instead of writing code. But it ended up with a somewhat rigid naming structure with control characters and delimiters. The non technical people hated it more the actual XML they had used prior.
You're talking about YAML? /s
-
Why do you have to use three different screens from two different applications to get the information you need for one shipment invoice? Because
we didn’t reinvent any wheelseveryone has a bespoke wheel design and there's no interoperability or uniform interface.FTFY
It's been a long time. At some point people need to abandon this idea that all needs and wants must align exactly so that we can have only one standard. I understand the pull for it, but it's not realistic.
-
You're talking about YAML? /s
LOL. not far off
They started out with something close to YAML. As the project moved forward, they found out they needed to represent logic with interlinked sections. They needed section 3, point a to link back to section 1 point 3, sub point 2. So they toyed with some assembly-like operations. Then they needed some inheritance. They really just slowly re-implemented the common applications of xml one at a time, it just had less brackets and <> symbols when they were done.
-
What do you mean developer? As soon as I got a dock so I could actually use my steam deck like a desktop, I started experimenting with everything!
Obviously, I would never escape that trap...
2025 is the Year of the Desktop Reinvented Wheel.
-
It's been a long time. At some point people need to abandon this idea that all needs and wants must align exactly so that we can have only one standard. I understand the pull for it, but it's not realistic.
At some point people need to abandon this idea that all needs and wants must align exactly so that we can have only one standard.
That's what we have extensions for.
But I don't think we're anywhere near your hypothetical state. On the contrary, my time in business has been dominated by designing and updating bespoke interfaces between bespoke systems. Everything is bespoke, at the industry level. Measurement tools are bespoke. Relational databases are bespoke. Transmission protocols are bespoke. Everything's a daisy chain of staging tables and APIs, as you get what is functionally interchangeable data from half a dozen different systems to tie out into the final accounting ledger.
Hell, we can't even get aligned to the metric system. Assholes are still running around talking about feet and gallons, until they cross a border and have to kick over to meters and liters.
I understand the pull for it, but it’s not realistic.
One of the most revolutionary ideas of the modern logistics system was the uniform shipping container. You had a pre-defined box size with well-established uniform characteristics that you could load up with whatever you pleased. Then you could load up a container in a factory, put it on a truck, take it to a train, move it onto a ship, sail it across the sea, unload it onto a train, that puts it on a truck, that takes it to a warehouse. And because everyone agreed to adhere to a single shipping container standard, the entire system of transit could be built to accommodate units of that size.
Not only is the idea realistic, it is essential to a modern efficient interoperable system.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'll just steal the wheel and reinvent it later
-
At some point people need to abandon this idea that all needs and wants must align exactly so that we can have only one standard.
That's what we have extensions for.
But I don't think we're anywhere near your hypothetical state. On the contrary, my time in business has been dominated by designing and updating bespoke interfaces between bespoke systems. Everything is bespoke, at the industry level. Measurement tools are bespoke. Relational databases are bespoke. Transmission protocols are bespoke. Everything's a daisy chain of staging tables and APIs, as you get what is functionally interchangeable data from half a dozen different systems to tie out into the final accounting ledger.
Hell, we can't even get aligned to the metric system. Assholes are still running around talking about feet and gallons, until they cross a border and have to kick over to meters and liters.
I understand the pull for it, but it’s not realistic.
One of the most revolutionary ideas of the modern logistics system was the uniform shipping container. You had a pre-defined box size with well-established uniform characteristics that you could load up with whatever you pleased. Then you could load up a container in a factory, put it on a truck, take it to a train, move it onto a ship, sail it across the sea, unload it onto a train, that puts it on a truck, that takes it to a warehouse. And because everyone agreed to adhere to a single shipping container standard, the entire system of transit could be built to accommodate units of that size.
Not only is the idea realistic, it is essential to a modern efficient interoperable system.
I've worked with getting shipping working with a few a different companies. I find it a little silly to try to use shipping as an example of a non bespoke system. They can't even agree whether to do HxWxD or HxDxW. They agreed on one thing, great, that doesn't do much for the systems.
I don't think it's necessary to completely unbespoke the systems, we've wasted decades and decades on trying that and only ended up creating more and more different standards.
I also don't think that everything needs needs to remain as disjointed and insanely different as it currently is. But whenever I hear a person say, "don't reinvent the wheel." They, so far, have always tended to lack the understanding of how things actually work in the real world.
-
I know!! How can Jigsaw claim it "works fine"? He'd probably say something like "it's battle-tested and state of the art." What does that even mean??
Military-grade.
-
I've worked with getting shipping working with a few a different companies. I find it a little silly to try to use shipping as an example of a non bespoke system. They can't even agree whether to do HxWxD or HxDxW. They agreed on one thing, great, that doesn't do much for the systems.
I don't think it's necessary to completely unbespoke the systems, we've wasted decades and decades on trying that and only ended up creating more and more different standards.
I also don't think that everything needs needs to remain as disjointed and insanely different as it currently is. But whenever I hear a person say, "don't reinvent the wheel." They, so far, have always tended to lack the understanding of how things actually work in the real world.
I find it a little silly to try to use shipping as an example of a non bespoke system.
That's fine. Good luck with your bespoke-solution-to-everything. It does have the benefit of locking in clients and being very lucrative in the long run.
