AI Model: IQ, Speed, Cost

AI Model & API Providers Analysis | Artificial Analysis

SW: "Worse is Better": NJ/AT&T vs MIT, C vs LISP

 Worse is better - Wikipedia

"Worse is Better" or the "New Jersey style"^[1] (AT&T Unix is from New Jersey) is a term coined by Richard P. Gabriel in a 1989 essay^[2] to describe the dynamics of software acceptance and the frequency with which "worse" designs seem to outcompete better ones. The essay argues simple, hacked-together software that makes it to market first will often outcompete better and more elegant designs. Gabriel argues that by the time the elegant design is complete, users who have adopted the worse design will be unable to switch as a result of switching barriers, vendor lock-in, and backward compatibility requirements. Gabriel contrasts "worse-is-better" software with the "MIT Approach" of doing the "Right Thing", and argues bare-minimum software "has better survival characteristics than the-right-thing".^[3]

Rise of Worse Is Better by Richard P. Gabriel. Lucid, Inc

The essay argues that software designed under the "worse-is-better" philosophy (characterized by early Unix and C) has a higher survival rate and better adoption characteristics than software designed to be "the right thing" (characterized by Common Lisp and Scheme). Even though "worse-is-better" intentionally sacrifices absolute correctness and completeness for the sake of implementation simplicity, this simplicity makes the software highly portable, resource-efficient, and easy to spread like a "computer virus." Once it achieves mass adoption, it can gradually be improved to approach "the right thing."

---

Key Points

1. The Two Design Philosophies

Gabriel contrasts the two styles across four primary characteristics:

Characteristic	The MIT Approach ("The Right Thing")	The New Jersey Approach ("Worse is Better")
Simplicity	Interface simplicity is more important than implementation simplicity.	Implementation simplicity is the absolute highest priority.
Correctness	Must be correct in all observable aspects. Incorrectness is not allowed.	It is slightly better to be simple than correct.
Consistency	Consistency is as important as correctness; it cannot be sacrificed.	Consistency can be sacrificed for simplicity.
Completeness	Must cover as many expected situations as practical.	Completeness can be sacrificed in favor of any other quality.

Worse is Better vs. Better is Better – Andrew Myers

Worse is better, also for organisational design | by Jason Yip | Medium

In 1991, Richard P. Gabriel, then CEO of Lucid Inc., a company promoting the Lisp programming language, wrote about why Lisp was losing out to C, which he described as “worse is better”.

Lisp followed the “MIT/Stanford style of design”. In priority order:

1. Correctness;
2. Consistency;
3. Completeness;
4. Interface simplicity;
5. Implementation simplicity

In other words, correctness, consistency, and completeness is seen as more important than simplicity.

Unix and C followed the “New Jersey approach” (aka Bell Labs). In priority order:

1. Implementation simplicity;
2. Interface simplicity;
3. Correctness;
4. Completeness;
5. Implementation consistency;
6. Interface consistency

In other words, simplicity, especially simple implementation, is seen as more important than anything else.

The Worse is Better Philosophy Explained: A Comprehensive Guide to Software Evolution | Module | The Modern Tech Stack, AI Engineering & Full-Stack Development

Worse-is-better - Worse Is Better @Stanford.edu