4 ms·

This... Honestly the first lines seemed I thought this was an arrogant take, but he made _really_ good point and now I tend to agree with him. Still I am a bit

by orwin 2y ago

This... Honestly the first lines seemed I thought this was an arrogant take, but he made _really_ good point and now I tend to agree with him. Still I am a bit bothered, does a counterargument exist?

gpderetta 2y ago
Empirically, it seems Worse is Better appear to have been correct many many times.
- kayo_20211030 2y ago
  The New Jersey approach has the benefit of dealing with time in a sensible way. The time to market for the MIT approach is just too long if your revenue relies on actually shipping a product that covers the cost of the next iteration that will move you from 80% to 90%, or even 60% to 70%. It's an old joke, but in the long run we're all dead; and waiting for the production of an ivory tower implementation won't work out well. If it's all academic, and there's no commercial pressure, well, have at it. There's not much at stake except reputations. Furthermore, in the real world, your users' requirements and your internal goals, theoretically covered by "the" design, will change. Not everything can be reasonably anticipated. The original design is now deficient, and its implementation, which is taking too long anyway, will be a perfect reflection of its deficiency; and, not fit for its new purpose.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I'll go further. Even if users' requirements and your goals don't change, you don't adequately understand them. You don't know what your users need perfectly. It's better to fire rapidly and adjust your aim than it is to try to have your first attempt be perfect. (Yes, people take this too far the other way...) Get something out there and start getting feedback. You won't actually know until you do.
- ezekiel68 2y ago
  Yes and it almost serves as more of a coping mechanism (a thought framework that helps us accept what may not seem to be 'the better') than an airtight philosophical position.
ripap 2y ago
Worse is Better is Worse: https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/worse-is-worse.pdf https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/worse-is-worse.pdf Same author (name is an anagram).
- gpderetta 2y ago
  A pseudonym you mean?
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    An anagram. Same letters, different order.
    - gpderetta 2y ago
      I might be dense today, but how's Nickieben Bourbaki an anagram of Richard P. Gabriel?
  - jes5199 2y ago
    both!
- jes5199 2y ago
  the name also seems to be a reference to another pseudonym, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki
- orwin 2y ago
  I wish i could upvote you more than once. This is a very good counterargument.
- samatman 2y ago
  May as well complete the set: Is Worse Really Better? https://dreamsongs.com/Files/IsWorseReallyBetter.pdf https://dreamsongs.com/Files/IsWorseReallyBetter.pdf Also: Nickieben Bourbaki might be an anagram of something, but it is definitely not an anagram of Richard Gabriel, with or without the P. There's no G, there's no h, there's an N and a k, it isn't even particularly close. That claim is my best interpretation of this sentence: > Same author (name is an anagram). Although perhaps it was not your intention to connect the clauses in that way.
NAHWheatCracker 2y ago
One counterargument is that people who claim "worse is better" are often making excuses for why their preferred technology didn't win. Often in these arguments, worse means "shortcut" and better means "won". The difficulty is proving that not taking the shortcut had some other advantages that are assumed, like in the article.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  Winning is temporary. In 1900 Britain has an empire for example. Colonialism won right? The battleship, answering machines, VHS, the compact disk, steam engines. This "victory" is fleeting. When people people tell you C++, a language which didn't even exist when I was born, is "forever" they are merely betraying the same lack of perspective as when Britain thought its Empire would last forever.
kqr 2y ago
It is going to come down to context. For the most part, you never know quite what it is you are designing, so an iterative approach to design with fast feedback cycles will get you there quicker. Give people something to play with, see how they use it, and continue from there. But sometimes you need to know what is you are designing before giving it to people, because there are large risks associated with improvising. In those cases, making The Right Thing is still expensive, but it may reduce the risk of catastrophe. I think, however, that the latter cases are rarer than most people think. There are ways of safely experimenting even in high-risk domains, and I believe doing so ultimately lowers the risk even more than doing The Right Thing from the start. Because even if we think we can spend years nailing the requirements for something down, there are always things we didn't think of but which operational experience can tell us quickly.
Feathercrown 2y ago
I think the counterargument is that something being easy to proliferate doesn't mean that it's good.

by orwin 2y ago

This... Honestly the first lines seemed I thought this was an arrogant take, but he made _really_ good point and now I tend to agree with him. Still I am a bit bothered, does a counterargument exist?

gpderetta 2y ago

Empirically, it seems Worse is Better appear to have been correct many many times.

kayo_20211030 2y ago
The New Jersey approach has the benefit of dealing with time in a sensible way. The time to market for the MIT approach is just too long if your revenue relies on actually shipping a product that covers the cost of the next iteration that will move you from 80% to 90%, or even 60% to 70%. It's an old joke, but in the long run we're all dead; and waiting for the production of an ivory tower implementation won't work out well. If it's all academic, and there's no commercial pressure, well, have at it. There's not much at stake except reputations. Furthermore, in the real world, your users' requirements and your internal goals, theoretically covered by "the" design, will change. Not everything can be reasonably anticipated. The original design is now deficient, and its implementation, which is taking too long anyway, will be a perfect reflection of its deficiency; and, not fit for its new purpose.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I'll go further. Even if users' requirements and your goals don't change, you don't adequately understand them. You don't know what your users need perfectly. It's better to fire rapidly and adjust your aim than it is to try to have your first attempt be perfect. (Yes, people take this too far the other way...) Get something out there and start getting feedback. You won't actually know until you do.
ezekiel68 2y ago
Yes and it almost serves as more of a coping mechanism (a thought framework that helps us accept what may not seem to be 'the better') than an airtight philosophical position.

ripap 2y ago

Worse is Better is Worse: https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/worse-is-worse.pdf https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/worse-is-worse.pdf Same author (name is an anagram).

gpderetta 2y ago
A pseudonym you mean?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  An anagram. Same letters, different order.
  - gpderetta 2y ago
    I might be dense today, but how's Nickieben Bourbaki an anagram of Richard P. Gabriel?
- jes5199 2y ago
  both!
jes5199 2y ago
the name also seems to be a reference to another pseudonym, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki
orwin 2y ago
I wish i could upvote you more than once. This is a very good counterargument.
samatman 2y ago
May as well complete the set: Is Worse Really Better? https://dreamsongs.com/Files/IsWorseReallyBetter.pdf https://dreamsongs.com/Files/IsWorseReallyBetter.pdf Also: Nickieben Bourbaki might be an anagram of something, but it is definitely not an anagram of Richard Gabriel, with or without the P. There's no G, there's no h, there's an N and a k, it isn't even particularly close. That claim is my best interpretation of this sentence: > Same author (name is an anagram). Although perhaps it was not your intention to connect the clauses in that way.

NAHWheatCracker 2y ago

One counterargument is that people who claim "worse is better" are often making excuses for why their preferred technology didn't win. Often in these arguments, worse means "shortcut" and better means "won". The difficulty is proving that not taking the shortcut had some other advantages that are assumed, like in the article.

tialaramex 2y ago
Winning is temporary. In 1900 Britain has an empire for example. Colonialism won right? The battleship, answering machines, VHS, the compact disk, steam engines. This "victory" is fleeting. When people people tell you C++, a language which didn't even exist when I was born, is "forever" they are merely betraying the same lack of perspective as when Britain thought its Empire would last forever.

kqr 2y ago

It is going to come down to context. For the most part, you never know quite what it is you are designing, so an iterative approach to design with fast feedback cycles will get you there quicker. Give people something to play with, see how they use it, and continue from there. But sometimes you need to know what is you are designing before giving it to people, because there are large risks associated with improvising. In those cases, making The Right Thing is still expensive, but it may reduce the risk of catastrophe. I think, however, that the latter cases are rarer than most people think. There are ways of safely experimenting even in high-risk domains, and I believe doing so ultimately lowers the risk even more than doing The Right Thing from the start. Because even if we think we can spend years nailing the requirements for something down, there are always things we didn't think of but which operational experience can tell us quickly.

Feathercrown 2y ago

I think the counterargument is that something being easy to proliferate doesn't mean that it's good.