What is "more natural" is a matter of opinion, and opinion will differ.
But even if there's a lot of agreement that an existing convention could stand improvement, that doesn't by itself make it "a good reason any time" for throwing out the existing convention.
What is a "convention"? It's something followed by a large "installed base". So changing a convention means a large cost will be incurred in changing up.
Who should decide whether the benefits of changing outweigh the costs? Someone has to pay for it, and simple fairness suggests that the people who will bear the costs of changing up should have the largest say.
The point is that just because someone thinks something new is better doesn't mean that old should be thrown out. And if you ignore that installed base, the change just doesn't happen.
We tried in the U.S. to switch over to metric years ago. Many of us think it would have made sense, but many more people didn't agree and it didn't happen.
It would be easier computationally if there were 100 degrees in a circle rather than 360. But the 360-installed-base is too large and the costs of changing are judged to be too great, so we're stuck with 360.
You're absolutely right, though, that suggestions for change should always get a fair hearing, and people who believe in them should go ahead and see if enough other people will sign on.
But even if there's a lot of agreement that an existing convention could stand improvement, that doesn't by itself make it "a good reason any time" for throwing out the existing convention.
What is a "convention"? It's something followed by a large "installed base". So changing a convention means a large cost will be incurred in changing up.
Who should decide whether the benefits of changing outweigh the costs? Someone has to pay for it, and simple fairness suggests that the people who will bear the costs of changing up should have the largest say.
The point is that just because someone thinks something new is better doesn't mean that old should be thrown out. And if you ignore that installed base, the change just doesn't happen.
We tried in the U.S. to switch over to metric years ago. Many of us think it would have made sense, but many more people didn't agree and it didn't happen.
It would be easier computationally if there were 100 degrees in a circle rather than 360. But the 360-installed-base is too large and the costs of changing are judged to be too great, so we're stuck with 360.
You're absolutely right, though, that suggestions for change should always get a fair hearing, and people who believe in them should go ahead and see if enough other people will sign on.