I dont really take it this way. for me the 'nirvana fallacy' is that if we design a bespoke system, in the limit we will save work and end up with a better product than if we found a tank and a car, welded them together, and fixed them up.

whats not mentioned in the article is the 'never coming up for air' problem. maybe building a custom ruggedized car is worth the time investment - but the problem is that once your people get into that mode they always a new and interesting direction to take it, and never end up installing the seats and the taillights.

i still believe that an 80% implementation of some idealized system generally wins over 'just mash together some stuff to make a demo and we'll deal with the fallout later'...but since no one else does anymore its kind of moot.

>A fallacy I've noticed often in sw engineering, and might fall under the nirvana fallacy definition, is the assumption that there is one best tool for doing things

AKA "We must use git." :-)

Speaking of tanks and fallacies... https://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Wars-Reformers-Challenge-Gua...

But a tank is so much more powerful.

Not to mention the regulatory issues.

If everyone just buys tanks, eventually they'll have no choice but to change the regulations.