alt Hacker News> According to you "I could do this simplistic thing now but it would not work" is an impossible sentence?
Because that’s not what it said. If someone is talking to me, I don’t invent sentences in my head for them and assume things that they haven’t said.
That’s what you’re doing, inventing a whole situation outside of what the author described because you keep adding things that the author has not mentioned.
I have my interpretation of the dialog. And I agree with the author that Chet should focus on the simple thing now, and je can always wait later to refactor it to handle the future situation.
If you want to discuss an alternate interpretation, do it within the confine of the dialog. Don’t add your own words to it.
> Because that’s not what it said.
What it said is "I could do this simplistic thing now but ... that will be insufficient"
It LITERALLY says that it will not work, that it is not a good solution.
Even if Chet is wrong in his prediction, you quoted Chet and pretended that this thing that Chet is saying is a proof that this solution will work. This is so obviously not at all Chet's opinion.
And I'm sure you are going to INVENT "but Chet does not know what will happen in 3 weeks". Firstly, again, your "proof" is a quote from Chet, who, according to you, demonstrate that this solution is ok while that sentence is used by Chet to explain that the solution is not ok. But secondly, you have no idea why Chet is saying what he is saying, you INVENT that Chet does not know, does not have facts and numbers, while there are tons of real life example where it is easy and correct to predict that in 3 weeks something will not work anymore.
> ... inventing a whole situation outside of what the author described ...
I don't.
In the situation described by the author, is it true, is it factual that Chet thinks it will not work: YES, he is saying exactly that.
Is it factual that Chet is trying to provide more information but the author shut him down before hearing them: YES, this is factual.
Your only little argument is "let's imagine that Chet proposal, that he NEVER explains because he is interrupted, is bad". All I'm saying is that you have no idea what Chet argument is, you just assumed. This is fact. Can you tell me where, factually, in the written dialog, Chet explain his understanding and this understanding is indeed incorrect? Can you point me to these sentences? They don't exist.
You see "3 weeks" and concluded that "it is out of scope and/or over-engineered", which is obviously a bad conclusion as it is very easy to find plenty of example where this conclusion is totally wrong.
I don't want an alternate interpretation, there is no need for it. Does the author shut Chet down before Chet explains himself? YES. There is nothing to interpret, it's just a fact. Then, based on that, you said things that are BS, such as "Chet said '3 weeks' so it is the proof that it is out-of-scope". I then gave you a counter-example showing that your reasoning is wrong, and your only argument was "you invented this example so it does not count".