I would argue that in most cases where performance isn’t a constraint, the first algorithm that comes to mind is probably the most optimal choice. He even says:
> About 80% of the candidates go for the naive solution first. It’s easiest and most natural.
The “naive solution” will be easier to understand and maintain. Why make it harder if it doesn’t add value?
> About 80% of the candidates go for the naive solution first. It’s easiest and most natural.
The “naive solution” will be easier to understand and maintain. Why make it harder if it doesn’t add value?