Worse is better
- https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/LispGoodNewsBadNews.pdf
- https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/worse-is-worse.pdf
- https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/IsWorseReallyBetter.pdf
- https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/ProWorseIsBetterPosition.pdf
- https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/WorseIsBetterPositionPaper.pdf
Notes
This whole thing is an argument between design philosophies, contrasting benefits of building "the-right-thing" vs "worse-is-better", and how, on some scenarios, the worse-is-better approach has been more effective.
Also, it's a single guy arguing with himself under different pseudonyms so, dive into the papers with caution
The "worse-is-better" approach basically means that the most important attribute of a design comes from its simplicity, even if it means sacrificing correctness, consistency and completeness.
Then it argues, there's no such distinction, from a purist perspective, in any system since there will always be trade-offs where one approach is preferred over another. Also arguing that following the worse-is-better approach is poisonous since it might push people into not aiming for making the best thing possible, and end up with mediocre solutions.
The worse-is-better approach advocates for incremental improvements while "optimizing" for early adoption, since it can be faster to distribute.
It also argues worse-is-better is more effective given the decrease costs, and that perhaps quality is something few people appreciate.
Why is this called "worse is better", rather than perhaps "good enough"? Why is this whole argument starting with the premise of a negative being better?