Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 135 posts

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#61

Post by bluGill »

pier25 wrote: post #50
jhedwards wrote: post #43

I had the same negative reaction to the title that other commenters had, and of course I was thinking about software. But then I opened the article and saw a picture of a canvas and my mind shifted to music. I know lots of people who love to write music or want to write music but can never get anything done because of a feeling that it has to be perfect. I have always embraced an aesthetic of rough imperfection in my…

For artistic creation I always come back to this anecdote from the book "Art and Fear": "The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bath…

That anecdote seems to be a story that was just made up. It is believable if the students have never done ceramics before, however if the students have done a lot before I would expect thinking about what to make would become more useful than doing something again for the millionth time.

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#62

Post by bluGill »

jdsully wrote: post #49
jrumbut wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the recent entrepreneurial posts here mentioned a question like "do your users know how much they are suffering for lack of your product right now?" and I think that related to polish. If you have a machine that cures baldness you don't need polish. The knobs can be any color you want and give the user little electric shocks it doesn't matter. Nothing like this exists and potential users really know they want…

Consider a hypothetical low quality situation with this product. A guy running up to you on the street offering yellow colored baldness pills in a baggie. Sure they might work, but you’re not going to be the one to find out. The inventor, after many failed sales, may erroneously conclude there's no market for this product.

If you told someone from 1700 about any modern surgery they would think you are nuts for risking it - the little yellow pill is is less risky to them.

I wouldn't be the first to try your yellow pills on the street, but I know some people who would be. If they found it worked they would tell everybody, so things would quickly spread. (I'll ignore the FDA though government is a factor in the real world) In a few years people would be asking me why I haven't gone for those yellow pills yet...

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#63

Post by bluGill »

cryptica wrote: post #18
cm2012 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfectionism is great when you know exactly what the customer wants (like a custom made shoe). It wastes too much time when you're experimenting to find out what the market wants.

I think that a big part of the problem is that the economy fundamentally doesn't make any sense anymore so it's impossible for entrepreneurs to predict what the market wants. Nowadays, the market wants products made by companies whose founders have raised a lot of VC money and which are heavily advertised. If you're working on a product and you don't have good business connections, then you should make your product a…

Who you know always has and always will be more important than what you know. If you don't know everybody find that person who does. Remember, Jobs got richer than Woz, but Woz wouldn't have anything without Jobs: take what you can get and don't worry about someone else getting more so long as you are not completely cheated.

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#64

Post by zaphod4prez »

bluGill wrote: post #61
pier25 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For artistic creation I always come back to this anecdote from the book "Art and Fear": "The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bath…

That anecdote seems to be a story that was just made up. It is believable if the students have never done ceramics before, however if the students have done a lot before I would expect thinking about what to make would become more useful than doing something again for the millionth time.

I also remember this story and hearing that it was just made-up rather than real. However, I know a lot of professional artists and most of them do not have a process that consists of "sitting and thinking about what to make." It is often a generative process that consists of making small/sketchy things and iteratively fleshing it out. In other words, although that anecdote doesn't seem to be referencing any sort of study, it matches very well with my experience in the art world & in teaching art.

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#65

Post by JetezLeLogin »

So-called satisficers are happier with their decisions probably because they are decisions, that give them a sense of control. "I chose this 'good-enough' option, I will now proceed." In other words, if there exists some better path out there, I don't care, because this is good enough, and I want to proceed. It's all coming from, and directed from, within. You are the agent in charge.

Whereas so-called maximizers are always at the mercy of an external world that might contain a previously-unknown "better" or "best" option that they feel obliged to find. It comes from without; the world is in charge, the vagaries of a perfect ideal are in charge; the person is only hapless and reactive.

Thinking you're in control of your destiny (even if it's not true) is more satisfying for people.

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#66

Post by jdsully »

bluGill wrote: post #62
jdsully wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider a hypothetical low quality situation with this product. A guy running up to you on the street offering yellow colored baldness pills in a baggie. Sure they might work, but you’re not going to be the one to find out. The inventor, after many failed sales, may erroneously conclude there's no market for this product.

If you told someone from 1700 about any modern surgery they would think you are nuts for risking it - the little yellow pill is is less risky to them. I wouldn't be the first to try your yellow pills on the street, but I know some people who would be. If they found it worked they would tell everybody, so things would quickly spread. (I'll ignore the FDA though government is a factor in the real world) In a few years…

There is continuum and a point where the low quality of the product/presentation makes it extremely unlikely you will find market fit. A needed investor may see that only 1 in 1,000 of people talked to will buy it and conclude the market is too small.

To give another anecdote: people had an immediate need to not die from infection after surgery but it still took over 50 years for doctors to wash their hands because it was originally perceived as an attack on the doctors cleanliness. A bit of polish on the presentation would have went a long way.

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#67

Post by ravenstine »

opportune wrote: post #35
ravenstine wrote: post #15

This is exactly what I was saying in the other HN thread today about code reviews, and I got downvoted a bunch of times. A lot of people have a perfectionist mindset and lose sight of the fact that "perfection" can be subjective and that the product they are creating for the user is more important than the engineer's personal vision. This isn't to say that we should just throw out best practices, wing it, and never t…

This sounds like some non-engineer talk that ends up fucking the team up 1 year later as there code starts breaking everywhere, the code becomes very difficult to refactor, new hires start to struggle ramping up, etc. I agree that sometimes people can be too focused on perfection in code reviews but consistency, modularity, and other seemingly unimportant things are crucial in maintaining hygiene for your project

> This sounds like some non-engineer talk

Does it merely sound like non-engineer talk, or is it actually non-engineer talk? I just want to make sure you aren't making the wrong assumption or implying the wrong thing. I've been saying what I've been saying as a result of my 5+ years experience doing full-time software engineering.

> I agree that sometimes people can be too focused on perfection in code reviews but consistency, modularity, and other seemingly unimportant things are crucial in maintaining hygiene for your project

It's interesting to me how easily people here are assuming that I'm implying the absence of standards merely because I'm suggesting people opt not to chase perfection in favor of providing a non-blocking pathway for engineers to make changes or improvements. Maybe my phrasing is poor.

I don't think you and I disagree that consistency, modularity, etc., are important and should have some amount of enforcement. The point I'm trying to make is that, in my experience, people sometimes go too far with this, so there should be some set expectations as to the limits of an individual code review. Limiting the amount of review iterations in a unit of work and splitting feedback-related work into other tickets can help address the issue of perfection zealotry.

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#68

Post by itwy »

gowld wrote: post #27
itwy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." is wrongly translated into "perfect is the enemy of good". The correct translation is "the better is the enemy of good". Totally different meaning IMO. I understand it as the new "better" will eventually replace the existing "good".

Do you have a citation for that? Wikipedia disagrees on the history (it's originally Italian before French: "Il meglio è l'inimico del bene"), and playing with Google Translate shows its ambiguious without context http://go/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good https://www.google.com/search?q=le+mieux+translation

Unfortunately, I don't speak Italian, but I feel a better translation for "the best" in French is "le meilleur". In fact, if you just click the swapping icon in the Google translation link you posted above, you'll see it uses "meilleur". "c'est mieux" = "it's better", "c'est mieux que..." = "it's better than..."

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#69

Post by matwood »

pier25 wrote: post #50
jhedwards wrote: post #43

I had the same negative reaction to the title that other commenters had, and of course I was thinking about software. But then I opened the article and saw a picture of a canvas and my mind shifted to music. I know lots of people who love to write music or want to write music but can never get anything done because of a feeling that it has to be perfect. I have always embraced an aesthetic of rough imperfection in my…

For artistic creation I always come back to this anecdote from the book "Art and Fear": "The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bath…

At some point there is no substitute for doing. This is why directed practice is such a good method for learning something. It is practice with some theory in mind.

Re: It’s Never Going to Be Perfect, So Just Get It Done

#70

Post by paddlepop »

bluGill wrote: post #60
CM30 wrote: post #54

Well, they've got a point. There are definitely quite a few projects whose creators needed to step back, stop spending years focusing on the wrong things and actually get something done. I mean, look at Duke Nukem Forever. Might have done pretty well had they not spent 14 years on it. Same with many other games and pieces of art that spent decades in development, and sometimes bankrupted/broke their creators in the p…

For software you should make something - any part - work and release it. Then do regular feature releases after that. If you are not working alone you can ask your marketing people for help, sometimes it is worth waiting for a big bang release, sometimes not (For some things if you miss Christmas you should delay until next Christmas). I recommend you err on the side of release too soon - customers are the ultimate a…

This doesn't work so well for video games. Reviews come out saying its thin on content with a score to match and can kill a game before its had a chance to expand. Developers have started trying to do this more often lately with mixed results, DICE and Blizzard are high profile examples of this. Blizzards latest World of Warcraft expansion was heavily criticized for the lack of content on release day and has yet to shake the bad blood even after two big content patches. DICE tried this with Star Wars Battlefront but couldn't keep fans long enough with the limited maps it released with.
Post reply on HN