3 ms·
This assumes that bad code is, at worst, worth nothing which isn't the case. Bad code that crashes a mission critical system is absolutely worse than nothing. O
by thinkharderdev 6y ago
This assumes that bad code is, at worst, worth nothing which isn't the case. Bad code that crashes a mission critical system is absolutely worse than nothing. Or to take your Windows example, I could argue that the problem with Windows was the opportunity cost. If Windows didn't take over the world maybe we would have more choices when it comes to desktop OSs
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoNo. Bad code that crashes a mission critical system may in fact be worse less than nothing, but my argument doesn't assume that. It assumes that Windows, though bad code, was still worth more than nothing. What's more, it takes the massive success of Windows as market-based evidence that Windows was worth quite a bit more than nothing - or at least, computers running Windows were worth something. Opportunity cost isn't usually considered in terms of a market, it's considered for an organization. If Microsoft hadn't done Windows, could they have done something more successful with the resources? That's pretty hard to imagine. Certainly you can say that Windows was bad for (the rest of) the desktop OS market. But the fact is, no mind control rays were involved. Microsoft created an OS that unlocked enough functionality for the average user, for little enough cost, that Microsoft took over the world. (Yeah, I know, lock-in and monopoly shenanigans. It's true. But none of it would have mattered if the OS were not good enough to mostly work for most people.) I can't believe I'm being an apologist for Windows. Gack.
- thinkharderdev 6y agoYeah, fair enough. I guess at least from MSFTs perspective bad code was better than nothing.