Not OC question, but rather copied this from the pragmatic programmer
As a user, would you rather (1) wait for them [the software dev/company] to get all the bugs out, (2) have complex software and accept some bugs, or (3) opt for simpler software with fewer defects?
In general:
- I would rather not wait. This mostly benefits everyone: user gets to see what is coming, developer gets feedback, and depending on software maybe user can start getting the benefits sooner
- on the other hand, it has some risks: maybe devs spend time fixing problems instead of bigger “building the system” tasks. Maybe users get attached to the “pre-release way of doing things” even if the final release is better. (Early access game mods can be very vulnerable to this)
Complete vs simple software, it depends on what the job is. Some complexity is fine, and some bugs are fine, as long as there is a plan to get to where you want the software to be.
it’s either fit for purpose or not fit for purpose. “finished” software can be a meaningless treadmill to nowhere.
I have a pretty high tolerance for jank personally, so I guess I’m in camp 2
Love Unix principle: do one thing and do it right.
So I look for quite stable and simple software rather than huge over complex monsters that are never really finished or ready (yes IBM and Microsoft I look at you)
That’s kinda complicated. I thought about underdeveloped interface but a perfectly working backend.
If it functions but like the interface is difficult than pressing button
if it does not fit my purpose (aka software is unfinished), i will not use it and will not wait for bugfixes. so either (2) or (3)
