Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Essential Readings of Computer Science: Worse is Better
The "Worse is Better" paper is a classic computer science paper that everyone in the field should read. I regularly re-read it.
But wait... there's more! By the same author, arguing AGAINST Worse is Better: Worse Is Better Is Worse
I hadn't known about that earlier piece, but the author then rebutted his own rebuttal! Craziness! See it here: Is Worse Really Better?
Alright, I've got to get back to work :)
But wait... there's more! By the same author, arguing AGAINST Worse is Better: Worse Is Better Is Worse
I hadn't known about that earlier piece, but the author then rebutted his own rebuttal! Craziness! See it here: Is Worse Really Better?
Alright, I've got to get back to work :)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Priceless. :-) It's a bit unsettling when people argue that tools, technology or methods of exceptional design are for weirdos, and should be discouraged.
On the other hand, the other side of the coin is that it gives those same weirdos a competitive edge as soon as they reach (or while they retain, as the case may be) critical mass to sustain life. Paul Graham has written good essays on the adopting that competitive edge.
It's a luxury to be able to pick one's own level of ivory towers. :)
On the other hand, the other side of the coin is that it gives those same weirdos a competitive edge as soon as they reach (or while they retain, as the case may be) critical mass to sustain life. Paul Graham has written good essays on the adopting that competitive edge.
It's a luxury to be able to pick one's own level of ivory towers. :)
Interesting that both come from the same author on the same topic, given the vastly different writing styles and conclusions.
His argument for "worse" is practical, plain-spoken, and cogent.
his "argument" for better isn't even that -- it's more a collection of despondent, rhetorical questions.
Overall, I found the "worse" argument more compelling, but I'm a C++ guy so perhaps that's a given. :)
Post a Comment
His argument for "worse" is practical, plain-spoken, and cogent.
his "argument" for better isn't even that -- it's more a collection of despondent, rhetorical questions.
Overall, I found the "worse" argument more compelling, but I'm a C++ guy so perhaps that's a given. :)
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
