> That's like saying we can't design a fighter jet so we're going to melt a ball of steel into some shape, put an engine on it, and try to fly it, and only then start optimizing. That's not engineering, that's trial and error.
Sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. "Performance", by definition of the context of this general discussion, is outside of spec. A ball of steel with an engine strapped on that doesn't fly isn't within spec. A more appropriate analogy for a fighter jet would be cost optimization (and yes, I realize that's not perfect, but bear with me). The first priority is getting the jet doing what it needs to do. If you design the thing to be made of 90% gold and platinum, then yes, optimizing cost is going to be impossible. But if you keep things semi-reasonable materials-wise, you can (presumably) optimize the manufacturing process post-facto to be more economically friendly.
Performance can't be outside spec. Performance is part of the spec. Maybe it says "don't care" but it's gotta be in the spec and if it says "don't care" it better be you really don't care. If you have performance targets you have to design towards them - don't meet all the other goals and only then start thinking about performance.
Sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. "Performance", by definition of the context of this general discussion, is outside of spec. A ball of steel with an engine strapped on that doesn't fly isn't within spec. A more appropriate analogy for a fighter jet would be cost optimization (and yes, I realize that's not perfect, but bear with me). The first priority is getting the jet doing what it needs to do. If you design the thing to be made of 90% gold and platinum, then yes, optimizing cost is going to be impossible. But if you keep things semi-reasonable materials-wise, you can (presumably) optimize the manufacturing process post-facto to be more economically friendly.