>>64023294
I'm not saying they just wanted to build something and it coincidentally came out identical to an existing example of the type.
I'm saying that if you're building something and there's an existing example of the type, any deviation from that example is likely to be worse at the job than it.
There's a reason why the first one looks that way, a bunch of technical problems got solved by that design.
If you start from a blank page, you face all the same problems which have already been solved but you're just refusing to use what works out of pride.
Get it working first, don't deviate from the existing designs until you understand them very well, out of necessity, you have to understand the designs and problems better than the original engineers because they couldn't come up with a better solution than what they built.
It's kind of the inverse of the IT problem:
>Not Invented Here
IT companies are notorious for all writing their own task tracking/assignment/time sheeting applications, despite that solid applications have already been written and commercially published.
They don't want to pay another company to get something that it's perfectly possible to develop in-house with innate customisation.
So they make their own but they haven't spent the time and money on focus groups and user testing and don't have the history and experience to find good solutions to tricky problems, so their product is always inferior to the commercial solutions (albeit bloat-free).
In nearly all cases, they'd save money and have a better system by buying the competitor's product.
Can't do that though, it wasn't invented here so we're not using it.
