The phrase "Worse is better" involves an equivocation - the 'worse' and 'better' properties are applied in completely different domains (technical quality vs. market success). But, hate it or not, it is undeniable that "worse is better" philosophy has been historically successful.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:50 PM, David Leibs <david.le...@oracle.com>wrote: > Hi Chris, > I get your point but I have really grown to dislike that phrase "Worse is > Better". Worse is never better. Worse is always worse and worse never > reduces to better under any set of natural rewrite rules. Yes there are > advantages in the short term to being first to market and things that are > worse can have more mindshare in the arena of public opinion. > > "Worse is Better" sounds like some kind of apology to me. > > cheers, > -David Leibs > > On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Chris Warburton <chriswa...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > Unfortunately, a big factor is also the first-to-market pressure, > otherwise known as 'Worse Is Better': you can reduce the effort required > to implement a system by increasing the effort required to use it. The > classic example is C vs LISP, but a common one these days is > multithreading vs actors, coroutines, etc. > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
