> it's almost impossible to find anyting that's truly finished, not simply abandoned. This goes far beyond programming. "completeness" is nice but is highly su

> it's almost impossible to find anyting that's truly finished, not simply abandoned. This goes far beyond programming. "completeness" is nice but is highly subjective. For work that can be infinitely revised, refactored, recut, "finished" is an idea you impose from the outside, in relation to specific criteria. The author seems to be saying that there is value in creating smaller, independent modules of things that can be said to be "finished" when they do their thing and no further functionality is added or expected to be added. Further functionality, if needed, would come from connecting "finished" things together, I suppose, or making new things- not over extending a component to handle all cases. This moves the complexity around a bit and maybe it's more efficient and easier to handle this way. Artists have a similar problem. It's hard to know when a poem or a song is "functionally complete" but eventually you have to let them go or you never get anything out there. I'm all for conscientiously abandoning work, especially if the state of the work is well documented so that somebody else could, in theory, pick it up.