Simple, correct, fast: in that order
drewdevault.com
Simple, correct, fast: in that order
1–10 of 349 posts
Re: Simple, correct, fast: in that order
#2I would argue that correct is more important than simple.
Consider timezones: it's simpler to pretend there's 24 time zones, one for each hour. But the correct assertion is there's 37 time zones (as of this writing). So, the simple solution results in a third of your potential user base having issues.
Other issues to pick: accessibility, cross-browser compatibility, legacy device compatibility... the list goes on.
Re: Simple, correct, fast: in that order
#3 > The reason is straightforward: if your
> solution is not simple, it will not be
> correct or fast.
Re: Simple, correct, fast: in that order
#4Not convinced. Simplifying a correct implementation can be easier than correcting a simple implementation. Eventually you need to find the correct model and then everything else will follow easily, but a complex implementation that does the right thing will tell you a lot more about what the correct model is than a simple implementation that doesn't do the right thing.
Re: Simple, correct, fast: in that order
#5This title is misleading. The post actually says that the reason "simple" comes first is because without it you can't have "correct" (nor "fast", not that that matters so much). So he's not saying simple is most _important_, just that it comes first chronologically, and has the other two as consequences.
Re: Simple, correct, fast: in that order
#6The simplest code is an empty file. And yet, we live in a world with complex software. There are tradeoffs, but this article doesn't help you make them.
Re: Simple, correct, fast: in that order
#7I would argue that correct is more important than simple. Consider timezones: it's simpler to pretend there's 24 time zones, one for each hour. But the correct assertion is there's 37 time zones (as of this writing). So, the simple solution results in a third of your potential user base having issues. Other issues to pick: accessibility, cross-browser compatibility, legacy device compatibility... the list goes on.
Obviously to solve the problem, a certain amount of correctness is implied. But once that threshold is reached, simplicity is a better use of your time. At least, that's the thesis of the article.
Re: Simple, correct, fast: in that order
#8I prefer: “the strategy is definitely: first make it work, then make it right, and, finally, make it fast”.
Re: Simple, correct, fast: in that order
#9My take on this from like 10 years ago:
http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2007/06/getting-your-p...
I came up with Readable as the top priority, followed by Debuggable and Maintainable. I suppose one could combine that into "Simple" if one liked.
But yeah, Fast was already at the bottom of the list. Even back then.
Re: Simple, correct, fast: in that order
#10I would argue that correct is more important than simple. Consider timezones: it's simpler to pretend there's 24 time zones, one for each hour. But the correct assertion is there's 37 time zones (as of this writing). So, the simple solution results in a third of your potential user base having issues. Other issues to pick: accessibility, cross-browser compatibility, legacy device compatibility... the list goes on.
My read of this that simple means not necessarily handling all possible edge cases yet having enough of a skeleton in place that the core functionality is there. Correct is extending (or replacing) that skeleton with coverage for all cases.