hultberg.org: LinkLog

Better half-right than all wrong

This article on the design philosophy of "worse is better" is very interesting. But what the hell does this mean: "the MIT guy then muttered that sometimes it takes a tough man to make a tender chicken"?

Working with approximations, and getting the important parts as good as possible, has always been the way for me. Always getting every detail perfectly right or creating the perfect design / plan / theory covering all aspects and eventualities that may occur is just not realistic.

Sure, we all want to do "the right thing" but I have never found myself in a position where it is possible due to time and / or budget constraints.

First, the right thing needs to be designed. Then its implementation needs to be designed. Finally it is implemented. Because it is the right thing, it has nearly 100% of desired functionality, and implementation simplicity was never a concern so it takes a long time to implement. It is large and complex. It requires complex tools to use properly. The last 20% takes 80% of the effort, and so the right thing takes a long time to get out, and it only runs satisfactorily on the most sophisticated hardware.

This article describes an interesting view on the subject.

The lesson to be learned from this is that it is often undesirable to go for the right thing first. It is better to get half of the right thing available so that it spreads like a virus. Once people are hooked on it, take the time to improve it to 90% of the right thing.

I found it linked in Clay Shirky's latest NEC installment which was a very interesting read also.

Richard Gabriel: The Rise of 'Worse is Better'

Random fortune brought to you by www.fortunes.nu:

:: ()