zlacker

Eh there are certainly places for that mentality, but I prefer working with engineers and in places that do the opposite. Sure you can use the finest wood on the back, and polish the underside beautifully, but your beautiful chest is probably either never going to be bought or ripped apart and the wood reused for a chair. A lot of times, the fancy back of the chest is a complete and utter waste of time and effort.

Good engineers have to know when they're building a beautiful chest for public display for 20 years, and when their customer doesn't even know if they want a chest yet. It's a matter of context and being aware enough of the business circumstances to make the right decision.

>>willsm+(OP)
As a kid, my dad (a mechanical engineer) explained this to me in a really memorable way. He was planning a model bridge building contest for my friends and me, and I complained that he was making too many rules. Allowed building materials, maximum qty of various things, etc. He pointed out that without these rules, it’d be perfectly acceptable to just fill the simulated valley with concrete—there’s no way that would lose the load bearing test. But it’s also not fun and defeats the purpose of the contest. _The constraints were important._ It’s the constraints that make it engineering. So you could use a beautiful piece of solid wood on the back of your dresser. But most likely that breaks the constraint of cost. Knowing where to save money on material without it getting noticed is where the engineering is.

>>crgwbr+cC
very well said