Hello Peter,
On 19/10/30 03:40PM, Peter Wiehe wrote:
> Hi Laslo and list!
>
> Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de> schrieb am Di., 29. Okt. 2019 08:59:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:58:54 +0100
> > Peter Wiehe <peter.wiehe2_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Peter,
> >
> > > It seems that you like Plan9 and dislike the Linux kernel. And you
> > > seem to agree to "Worse is Better" which is presented here:
> > > https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
> > > (I think "Better" is also called "It needs a tough cook/programmer to
> > > make a chicken tender" or similar.)
> > >
> > > But that seems to be a contradiction! For me Plan9 seems to be of the
> > > "better" kind (Some effort was done to create a simple interfac) and
> > > Linux seems of the "worse" kind (Minimal effort in elegant design).
> > > ("Better" and "worse" not judging but strictly in the context as
> > > mentioned above.)
> > >
> > > Any clarification on this is welcome.
> >
> > I always understood the "Worse is better" principle to be an ironic
> > take on many peoples' opinion that solutions with fewer features are
> > worse than those with more.
> >
> > With best regards
> >
> > Laslo
> >
> OK. Then my questions are:
>
> a) Should one (in your opinion) program many features or few?
>
> b) Should one (in your opinion) go for the fast hack or the simple user
> interface?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Wiehe
>
>
>
Calling simple tools that are much more stable than most programs out
there a "fast hack" is a little disrespectful in my opinion. The
programs with the "simple user interface" are usually the hacky ones,
as the codebase gets larger it gets harder to maintain. With such large
codebase, developers tend to hack in their fixes instead of rewriting a
faulty section. That is my opinion anyways.
Best regards,
Cem
Received on Wed Oct 30 2019 - 15:52:36 CET