3 ms·
Empirically, it seems Worse is Better appear to have been correct many many times.
by gpderetta 2y ago
Empirically, it seems Worse is Better appear to have been correct many many times.
- kayo_20211030 2y agoThe 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 agoI'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 agoYes 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.