11–20 of 351 posts
I agree though that for practical purposes, practical solutions are just going to be more successful.
This... Honestly the first lines seemed I thought this was an arrogant take, but he made _really_ good point and now I tend to agree with him. Still I am a bit bothered, does a counterargument exist?
Same author (name is an anagram).
looking at how it played out with javascript one can't but agree. (edit: I mean it unironically)
This... Honestly the first lines seemed I thought this was an arrogant take, but he made _really_ good point and now I tend to agree with him. Still I am a bit bothered, does a counterargument exist?
Worse is Better is Worse: https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/worse-is-worse.pdf Same author (name is an anagram).
For example, why is it that central vacuums are more rare in 2024 than they were in the 1980s, despite them being superior in every way compared to regular ones?
"Worse" vacuums are "better" for the economy? (because Dyson makes jobs and consumes resources?)
—
Anyway, I wouldn’t put simplicity on the same level as the other things. Simplicity isn’t a virtue in and of itself, simplicity is valuable because it helps all of the other things.
Simplicity helps a bit with consistency, in the sense that you have more trouble doing really bizarre and inconsistent things in a simple design.
Simplicity helps massively with correctness. You can check things that you don’t understand. Personally, that means there’s a complexity prove after which I can’t guarantee correctness. This is the main one I object to. Simplicity and correctness simply don’t belong in different bullet-points.
Simplicity could be seen as providing completeness. The two ways to produce completeness are to either work for a really long time and make something huge, or reduce scope and make a little complete thing.
It’s all simplicity.
looking at how it played out with javascript one can't but agree. (edit: I mean it unironically)
JavaScript really illustrates the ultimate path-dependence of evolution. It got widely deployed during a boom time and therefore we are stuck with it forever.
I'll never understand the obsession with LISP. My guess is it just appeals to a certain type of person, sort of academic in my view. I'm not convinced that LISP was ever the-right-thing. The author didn't express anything about LISP vs C except to assert that C was a 50% solution and LISP was better. I agree though that for practical purposes, practical solutions are just going to be more successful.
I don’t get the name New Jersey approach, is it just the general association of New Jersey and poor quality? When I think of New Jersey and CS, I think of Princeton, which has a pretty good program IIRC. — Anyway, I wouldn’t put simplicity on the same level as the other things. Simplicity isn’t a virtue in and of itself, simplicity is valuable because it helps all of the other things. Simplicity helps a bit with cons…