Totally agree, standardisation makes everything so much more legible, even if there are problems with the standard.
I also think there is a profoundly non-linear relationship (I don't want to say negative-exponential, but it could be), between:
- The number of lines of code, or distinct configuration changes, you make to the defaults of an off-the-shelf tool
- The cognitive and practical load maintaining that personalized setup
I'm convinced that the opportunity cost of not using default configurations is significantly higher than we estimate, especially when that environment has to be shared across multiple people.
(It's unavoidable or even desirable in many cases of course, but so often we just reinvent hexagonal wheels.)
While I have experienced both sides of the equation here, I find it much more pleasant to have things specialized instead of standardized. Yes, you spend a bit of time maintaining the functionality, but all that functionality (and maintenance) is there in support of your goal.
Using standardized software often leads to spending half a day just trying to find a way to work around the limitation you face. The next level there is that you realize you can just fix it, spend half a day crafting the perfect PR, and then submit it into the void, leaving it hanging for half a year before someone gets to it.
I also think there is a profoundly non-linear relationship (I don't want to say negative-exponential, but it could be), between:
- The number of lines of code, or distinct configuration changes, you make to the defaults of an off-the-shelf tool
- The cognitive and practical load maintaining that personalized setup
I'm convinced that the opportunity cost of not using default configurations is significantly higher than we estimate, especially when that environment has to be shared across multiple people.
(It's unavoidable or even desirable in many cases of course, but so often we just reinvent hexagonal wheels.)