3 ms·

I disagree completely. The article is one example of the "sometimes not doing something is better than doing it" anti-pattern, it just is in the sales category.

crusso 15y ago
Sure, at a certain level of abstraction, everything is related to everything. The situations in which you would use the design methodology of simplification really has nothing to do with the reason the original author of this article is recommending not taking on some client work. On top of all of this, why do you use the term "anti-pattern"? I don't think that word means what you think it means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern
- apinstein 15y ago
  I still disagree :) Who said anything about simplification? I think "the design methodology of simplification" is a) not what the article is about IMO, and b) orthogonal to the idea of the power of not trying to do everything that crosses your desk. The anti-pattern is that in many circles it's essentially a best practice to do everything. Sales guys sell everything, even if it's not in the wheelhouse of the company. Software guys add features that they should probably have the courage to say no to. Musicians over-do their music (ie trying to show off). So that's the anti-pattern; people realize that sometimes saying no is better than the alleged best practice of always finding a way to say yes. I will admit I certainly could've worded things better, but I was writing from my phone and that tends to decrease my willingness to craft better comments. That said, the book "Getting to Yes" which is the inspiration for the article's title isn't at all about always saying yes. It's about principled negotiation. It is an amazing book; there's a reason it's standard fare in the MBA world. I would argue that someone practicing principled negotiation would say no in the situation of the article as well; in that sense the articles title is kinda just a cheesy headline (but still nice, it made me click on it).

crusso 15y ago

Sure, at a certain level of abstraction, everything is related to everything. The situations in which you would use the design methodology of simplification really has nothing to do with the reason the original author of this article is recommending not taking on some client work. On top of all of this, why do you use the term "anti-pattern"? I don't think that word means what you think it means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern

apinstein 15y ago
I still disagree :) Who said anything about simplification? I think "the design methodology of simplification" is a) not what the article is about IMO, and b) orthogonal to the idea of the power of not trying to do everything that crosses your desk. The anti-pattern is that in many circles it's essentially a best practice to do everything. Sales guys sell everything, even if it's not in the wheelhouse of the company. Software guys add features that they should probably have the courage to say no to. Musicians over-do their music (ie trying to show off). So that's the anti-pattern; people realize that sometimes saying no is better than the alleged best practice of always finding a way to say yes. I will admit I certainly could've worded things better, but I was writing from my phone and that tends to decrease my willingness to craft better comments. That said, the book "Getting to Yes" which is the inspiration for the article's title isn't at all about always saying yes. It's about principled negotiation. It is an amazing book; there's a reason it's standard fare in the MBA world. I would argue that someone practicing principled negotiation would say no in the situation of the article as well; in that sense the articles title is kinda just a cheesy headline (but still nice, it made me click on it).