4 ms·
The problem is that the worse is better school usually wins over the long run. Jamie Zawinski has a great essay on this [1]. Unix was a "worse is better" MULTI
by quanticle 15y ago
The problem is that the worse is better school usually wins over the long run. Jamie Zawinski has a great essay on this [1].
Unix was a "worse is better" MULTICS. DOS was a "worse is better" CP/M. Windows was a "worse is better" MacOS. The advantage of simple implementations is that you can get them in front of users right now, and then iterate your implementation until you have something that's cheap and adequate. Not perfect. Not even great. But adequate. However, as the essay points out, cheap and adequate today beats pricey and perfect tomorrow every time.
[1]: http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
- arundelo 15y agoIt's by Richard Gabriel.
- Volpe 15y ago> Windows was a "worse is better" MacOS Bad example, MacOS was out years before windows. Microsoft just got a massive market hack. It had nothing to do with solving a problem directly and then iterating...
- eftpotrm 15y agoMacOS (not that it was then branded as such) - 1984. Windows 1.0 - 1985. So not quite years really.
- Volpe 15y agojanuary 1984 vs november 1985... you going to get pissy about 3 months? My point is still valid.
- kenneth_reitz 15y agoWindows 1.0 was just a fancy dosshell. Windows 3.0 should count as 1.0 in this case I think :)
- eftpotrm 15y agoFrankly I think you could make an argument even Win3 wasn't all that much to write home about.... (I confess to still mild incredulity that MacOS beat AmigaOS so thoroughly in the market, being both more expensive and substantially less powerful in both hardware and software. If Commodore had done their jobs properly, we'd be saying Steve Who?)