"perfect" is the enemy of "good", but so is "bad". Bad is definitely the enemy of good. So it winds up being arguments about whether something is "bad" or "goo

"perfect" is the enemy of "good", but so is "bad". Bad is definitely the enemy of good. So it winds up being arguments about whether something is "bad" or "good enough". I mean, that's kind of the whole damn trick, figuring out what is good enough. It's good to remember that "good enough" has upper as well as lower bands, it's true that perfectionism is not the way to go -- especially because you are usually over-confident in your ability to predict how something will actually turn out under real world use and requirements. But I also find people insisting "the perfect is the enemy of the good" while trying to do crap. Why bother trying to do better than crap, the perfect is the enemy of the good! Determining what is "good enough", over the sustainable long haul, is literally the whole trick to software design. At what point you are getting diminishing returns or even counter-productive complexity from trying to polish it further. If it was easy we wouldn't be having these conversations. Slogans still don't make it easy.