Varun Srinivasan
@v
"Worse is better" is a good principle when thinking adding to the Farcaster protocol. Too often, the discussions veers to making the feature more generic to support hypothetical use cases. What often happens is: 1. The extra feature gets low usage 2. Every developer building a client now has a tax 3. Some developers don't pay the tax, and ignore the feature The feature isn't well supported, and no one uses it, and just creates a bunch of ongoing debt for everyone. The goal for every feature should be adoption - if no one can guarantee that the feature will be adopted after it is implemented, we probably shouldn't ship it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
7 replies
35 recasts
111 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
There are some cases where the generic costs just as much as the specific. Frames and mini-apps are good examples where it was a better tradeoff to make the building block as flexible as possible. But these tend to be the except. Many features get significantly more expensive to integrate with as they become generic.
3 replies
0 recast
29 reactions
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
You only know adoption after the fact. How do you then know what an extra feature is?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Timber ☀️
@timber
Good chance that this applies to protocols in general
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Arti Villa | IRL at Devcon⟠⟠
@artivilla.eth
what’s an example of the specific features that aren’t generic? or is point you’re driving home, it’s worse to not ship, but it’s still better than creating tech debt.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
KMac🍌 ⏩
@kmacb.eth
Please reconsider this perspective on what ‘worse’ is. Framing worse from solely a protocol development context is likely different and arguably ‘better’ than an app dev’s who controls a protocol. I’d argue the ‘worse’ solution at this time is to have one msg type (let’s call that URL) vs picking X/twitter & geolocation & & & & & & As an eg tokenUri has evolved to mean more. Worse became better via ‘usage’. ht vrypan.eth The idea that FC protocol devs decide which domains should get new message type feels very wrong & potentially strategically detrimental as opinions & values get murkier. Where will it stop? 10 msg types? 100? Just a handful of legacy winners? Why go here? It’s seems unnecessary & ‘taxing’. Arguments #1, 2 & 3 seem to contradict each other. Protocol changes impact clients assuming the client wants to use it. Not sure what you mean by tax & how that’s discriminatory. Will you elaborate? Sadly I missed the dev call today. Will catch up on vid this weekend.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Father Morwen
@alditrus
Isn't a better adage "less is more"?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
dude
@imthedude
Fuckin' A, man
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
