2 ms·
I'm not sure what you mean? The literal quote from the Wikipedia article on "worse is better" is: > It refers to the argument that software quality does not ne
by zoogeny 1y ago
I'm not sure what you mean? The literal quote from the Wikipedia article on "worse is better" is:
> It refers to the argument that software quality does not necessarily increase with functionality: that there is a point where less functionality ("worse") is a preferable option ("better") in terms of practicality and usability.
For that reason, I think I am applying the term precisely as it was defined.
The irony of my comment, which dang picked up, is that the original idea was a criticism against Lisp, suggesting that the bloat of features was a part of the reason its adoption had lagged behind languages like C.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
- 90s_dev 1y agoYou're both saying the same thing: fewer features = higher quality. Swiss army knives are not as good at being screwdrivers as screwdrivers are.
- quinnirill 1y agoIn general: yes. But I’ve certainly had to use swathes of screwdrivers that are worse at being screwdrivers than my Swiss army knife is. Same I believe applies here: there’s a relation, but it’s nuanced. The same screwdriver is a better screwdriver when carried in a hand than in a toolbox full of other high-quality tools, but worse for everything else.
- throwawaymaths 1y agohuh. til i actually thought "worse is better" is more recent than that but it stems from an era where feature count was the measure of quality. how times have changed!! thanks!