Comment by xpe

> But there may be several advantages, as well as disadvantages with that approach - it is simply a trade-off.

Above, the word _simply_ conveys a lot of meaning. This sentence, when considered alone, might be seen to imply that all trade-offs are in a sense, ok, because they are all sort of a matter of taste. This doesn't mesh with my understanding of the world. I frame it this way: for a given objective, some trade-offs are better than others.

Put in reverse, when I see a project making certain trade-offs, I don't assume those trade-offs are in service of some clearly defined objective. Often I see people and organizations mired in trade-offs that are inertial and/or unconsidered.

There is another interesting angle to consider: framing as a question it would be: «When building a product or running a project, how do I make sense of a huge variety of trade-offs?» For that, exploring the Pareto frontier can be a useful method (see [1]) because it reduces the combinatorial explosion.

In the case of Ghostty, I think its values are indeed better served by this GitHub process (which designates an issue as a clear actionable task derived from a discussion).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_front