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
27 recasts
70 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
18 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
@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
Father Morwen
@alditrus
Isn't a better adage "less is more"?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
