Talk:Reinventing the wheel

Software Development section

I don't think that this is a good example of "reinventing the wheel", as it rather describes the act of re-implementing an existing (and known to be efficient) algorithm. A better example would be to "invent" a new sorting algorithm because it would be too much trouble to look up which existing algorithms are suitable for the use case. --158.169.40.8 (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

An 'unpopular' webcomic?

Do we have evidence to back this up, or is it an unencyclopedic assertion made simply to balance the "popular" bit. This article really is a mess. --Tom Morris 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Which term does the wheel refer to?

A wheel can be a gear, a vehicle's wheel, a round shape device like a bobbin. I thought it refers to a gear in regard of the complexity and the famous movie of Charlie Chaplin's, Modern Times. The Japanese article of Wikipedia, however, tells it's a tire of a vehecle. Is it so? BTW, I somehow am prohibited to edit the Japanese Wikipedia at all. tosendo (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In this context a "wheel" is an abstract mathematical/engineering concept. Mahjongg (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The metaphor is so effective because it deliberately refers to the most elementary form of the idea of the "wheel" as possible: that of virtually any circular (cylindrical, technically) object as a basis of applied movement. Indeed, the implication is that this fundamental principle can and has already been utilized in countless specific ways and forms, additionally emphasizing the degree and length of effort that has already been invested in its refinement. That one can express so much wisdom and irony in three words is a marvel of modern language, IMHO, that should inspire us—this comment aside, obviously—to always seek brevity, as ideas are most effectively shared in the fewest and simplest words necessary to convey their meanings. In this respect, the expression's brevity is itself an example of using simple, effective, existing ways of doing things rather than feeling compelled to develop one's own, possibly more complicated ways that would achieve the same (or inferior) results. Also, I've had coffee. – AndyFielding (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Merging w/ Not Invented Here?

I suggest that, since "Not Invented Here" (aka "Not Invented Here syndrome") is a comment American-English expression, merging this with "Reinventing the wheel" would make it harder to find. Even though they express the same basic sentiment.

There would be a redirect created. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 04:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm against merging! Not Invented Here is about a specific -reason- to re invent the wheel, not about the act of re inventing the wheel itself. Also "NIH" is more than just a regular expression, its about a psychological mechanism. Mahjongg (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Don't merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.242.113.49 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Paradox in first two sentences

First sentence suggests that the local technique may be different, the second argues that a known technique is reinvented. This is far from the same. Can this be fixed? --62.251.21.22 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to discussion of the original invention of it

Would it be a good idea to link to Wheel#History and Potter's_wheel#History? That would show when the original wheels were invented. Those articles also show the variety of wheels over the centuries.

Lpetrich (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Shark Wheel

"The term has also been used to describe the first non-circular wheel, invented in 2012, that takes the form of a three-dimensional sine wave. The seemingly complex shape has the actual width of a thin-profiled wheel and the nominal width of a wide-profiled wheel. The invention is currently in use by a company in Lake Forest, California, called Shark Wheel."

This paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb. It doesn't fit with the prior text and it reads like an advertisement. It was introduced in this edit in 2017. I've removed it, any objections?

John Kugelman (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)