3 ms·

> Another interesting idea to come out of the computing world around that time was the saying “worse is better“. Although this idea wasn’t a direct relative of

> Another interesting idea to come out of the computing world around that time was the saying “worse is better“. Although this idea wasn’t a direct relative of the Unix philosophy, it’s certainly similar. The idea references the fact that additional features or complexity doesn’t necessarily make things better, and a “worse” project — one with fewer features and less complexity — is actually better because it will tend to be more reliable and usable. I don't think that this is an accurate description of "worse is better". I've always taken it as being a bit (or more) tongue-in-cheek. Sort of an analogy to the saying that a lie can travel half-way around the world before the truth can get its boots on, but going on the say that a lie is therefore better because its faster.

jazzyjackson 8y ago
My understanding of "worse is better" is that it's a terse reading of "perfect is the enemy of just good enough", or in other words, "just ship it already" - pick a stopping point where it's useful, and stop worrying about how it could be perfect - you'll never ship. A more verbose breakdown of "worse is better" can be found in Richard Gabriels: "The Rise of Worse is Better"[1] also linked in the OP, which includes a really fun breakdown of MIT attitudes vs New Jersey attitudes. (To wit: AT&T Unix came to us from New Jersey) [1] https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html