> but it's not always malicious. this is a general problem with humans. They are "convince" that they do good even when they don't. > sometimes building somet

> but it's not always malicious. this is a general problem with humans. They are "convince" that they do good even when they don't. > sometimes building something new seems obvious. i have to push hard to get people to back up that obviousness with evidence. (provide me with evidence that these existing solutions are not suitable before we build a new one from scratch. The main issue here is that the perceived cost of starting from scratch is very low especially when from his ebony tower the programmer ignores all the issues the previous programmer had to confront. > sometimes building something new seems easier or cheaper than the effort required to evaluate alternatives, especially if the solution only takes a few days or weeks of work (take the obviousness factor above into account). ... days which become weeks, years , decades. Why is a software project (exept TeX) never complete ? > another factor is the seemingly common dislike of working with other peoples code. especially when it's known that modifications will need to be made. do we take this system with a lot of legacy code where we have to modify 20% or is it easier to start over and build what we need? If builders made buildings the way programmers make SW ... Why do SW cannot improve the code ? Why do they have to "invent" the wheel every day and in the end they obtain the same thing or even worse ? I'll give examples: 1. KDE and GNOME. With every release the interface is different. Old programs do not work anymore - they have to be ported to new KDE 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever. They were at the beginning way ahead of windows (r) and Mac now they just copy. Same with GNOME. 2. Win 10 looks the same like Win 1.0. Functionality is the same. Will Win 31 look the same like 3.1 ? 3. Dll or .so hell.