I think the worse-is-better philosophy is not well encapsulated with the 4 priorities given.

I think the worse-is-better philosophy is not well encapsulated with the 4 priorities given. Perhaps it is 4 completely different priorities. Here's a strawman. 1. Minimal -- the design and implementation must be the smallest as possible, especially the scope (which should be deliberately "incomplete") 2. Timely -- the implementation must be delivered as soon as feasible, even if it comes before the design (get it working first, then figure out why) 3. Relevant -- the design and implementation must address important, unmet need, eschewing needs that are not urgent at the time (you can iterate or supplement) 4. Usable -- the implementation must be integrated with the existing, working and stable infrastructure (even if that integration causes design compromises) The other dimensions, simplicity, correctness, consistency, and completeness are very nice to have, but they are not the primary drivers of this philosophy.

Posted by clarkevans on Oct 7, 2024, 3:14 PM

Tags

• hackernews (Other)

Related issues

• The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
• (My comment is about detached houses).
• The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
• > steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
• Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
• > our Git monorepo was developing an annoying problem Sentences like this are so common from people using monorepos that I am convinced ...