

When Someone Says, "Why would you want to do that?" - skorks
http://nickmudge.info/index.php?post=131

======
trafficlight
My favorite bash.org quote is relevant here.

<glyph> For example - if you came in here asking "how do I use a jackhammer"
we might ask "why do you need to use a jackhammer"

<glyph> If the answer to the latter question is "to knock my grandmother's
head off to let out the evil spirits that gave her cancer", then maybe the
problem is actually unrelated to jackhammers

------
swombat
Disagree with the article. Most of the time, this question, coming from geeks,
is helpful. The implicit statement is, "Hmm, why do you want to do that? What
problem are you solving? Are you sure that's the best tool for the job? Let's
look at the bigger problem first, before drilling down to some arcane and
difficult detail."

And yes, "because I want to learn how it works" is a valid answer. But the
question is valid too.

~~~
Mz
"Why would you want to do _that_?" is a very different question from "Hmm, why
do you want to do that?"

The emphasis on " _that_ " in the first one is usually rather accusatory and
the "Hmm" in the second one dramatically changes the entire tone. In face to
face conversation, the vast majority of meaning is not in the words but in the
body language, facial expression, and voice tone (and maybe a few other things
I am forgetting). The actual words we use are a tiny part of it, which is part
of why online communication can be so rife with pitfalls of misunderstanding
(which can lead to flame wars etc, which would probably be avoided IRL by
voice tone, etc while saying possibly the exact same thing as was written).

------
DuncanIdaho
I usually use this phrase to signal, that deed that the person asking me is
trying to perform is really not a good idea for a variety of reasons, while
simultaneously I can't think of a single good reason for performing the deed:
e.g.: If somebody asked me "how do I go about writing an XML parser for Java",
I would firstly respond with the question. And then proceed to explain to our
little grasshopper. That ALL the grasshoppers I know have been ignorant enough
to go and write their own XML parsers which weren't really good, and made them
waste precious life energy (not to mention community's resources) on something
they had no business doing.

There is a big difference between writing an XML parser for purpose of
learning how they work, and writing an XML parser because you are too ignorant
to learn how many times before they were already done badly, but still way
better than what you will produce.

I would also respond with forementioned question if somebody asked me: "How do
you go about mending car chassis with duct-tape??".

But then I might also ask the question, when faced with a new concept that
might be really, really cool. But I was thus far completely unaware of - due
to either my own ignorance or lack of experience.

In either case - I use the phrase to introduce some humor (or vent some
frustration) in an awkward situation.

------
prole
Bill Hicks offers another answer:

I've noticed a certain anti-intellectualism going around this country; since
about 1980, oddly enough. … I was in Nashville, Tennessee, and after the show
I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, but I was hungry. And I'm
sitting there eating and reading a book. I don't know anybody, I'm alone, so
I'm reading a book. The waitress comes over to me like, [gum smacking]
"What'chu readin' for?" I had never been asked that. Not "What am I reading?",
but "What am I reading _for_?" Goddangit, you stumped me. Hmm, why do I read?
I suppose I read for a lot of reasons, one of the main ones being so I don't
end up being a fucking _waffle waitress_.

------
wglb
The question I ask is "What problem are you trying to solve?", which more
unambiguously states what I mean.

In a tutorial, like the book referenced in the article, the reader is being
demonstrated things that they might need someday.

------
voidpointer
I think, when trying to help someone, asking for more context is a good thing.
The examples that are given in the article are often things that arguably
sound a bit more complicated than necessary (writing a windows app in
assembly). Thus, the question is a valid way to establish a bit of context and
by no means an implicit denial of the validity of what is being asked.
"Because I want to know how it works" or "because I have reason to believe it
is the only way it will work/be fast enough" are good replies and the whole
thing leads on to a nice discussion (No not an exchange of tweets, a real
discussion!)

------
brg
I disagree with almost all the replies here. Answering the followup question
may be helpful, but it is not providing anything in the way the request.

In my opinion it is more polite and less ego centric to simply answer the
question first, and then, if you are still inclined to prejudge the query as
something reflecting the ignorance, mention you are suspicious of its intent.

------
koningrobot
This sort of question annoys me to no end. My bosses and coworkers always
asked me this whenever I proposed refactoring code (improving "perfectly good"
old spaghetti or removing unused code). How would one go about answering this
question in such a situation?

~~~
Mz
Figure out why they are resistant and find some means to reduce their
resistance. For example: Did they write the code? If so, they may feel you are
'attacking' them/their competence in some way and you would need to find a
means to reassure them that you respect them (yadda yadda) while still arguing
for improvements. In many cases, ego and other personal stuff gets in the way
of productivity. When that happens, the most effective thing to do is address
the two issues separately.

