> On 07 Sep 2015, at 22:07, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not complaining. I know that there is a good chance that we break the
> system when improving it.
> I have no problem with that and I prefer a living system with some bugs for a
> while than a dead system with no bug :)
exactly. For me, Pharo was exactly that: Imagine instead of “not doing anything
because we could do better” we would
just do, as trivial and wrong as it our limits allow, but then learn from the
mistakes and repeat… and, important, this in
a way that the improvement “feeds back” into the system to have a direct impact
on the next iteration.
There are multiple feedback loops:
- you only learn when you do. And most when you do it wrong. When you do the
next thing it will be with more understanding and knowledge.
If you do nothing because what you can do might be not perfect, you will
just end with nothing.
- As we improve the system we use, every tiny improvement has an impact on the
next improvement.
The “This is just a 2% boring improvement” is part of an exponential growth
process if it happens in such a feedback loop.
- The artefact that you see is not the goal. It’s just a stepping stone
towards. It will be ugly and imperfect, it will contain parts that are even
not meant to be ever “nice” as they are just scaffolding. They are there to
help us build something else.
…..
Marcus
