3 ms·
> Hm... when I think "worse is better" I'm not thinking of software that is "rock solid, fast, and small". Have I been misunderstanding the essay? Have you rea
by sampo 7y ago
> Hm... when I think "worse is better" I'm not thinking of software that is "rock solid, fast, and small". Have I been misunderstanding the essay?
Have you read the 4 bullet points of the worse-is-better philosophy, in the beginning of the essay?
- ChrisSD 7y agoYes. Simplicity of implementation is given priority over all other factors. This does not, to my mind, mean "rock solid" software (even if care is taken for "observable aspects" of correctness) unless we have very different definitions for the term. It could be fast by virtue of having a simple implementation but that isn't a given. Sometimes getting speed is complicated, especially on modern processors.