I find the worse entirely accurate.

This is a classic piece of programmer lore that goes a long way to describing why the software industry is the way it is today i.e. why everything sucks so much. My only criticism I have of it is that he mischaracterizes the-right-thing as being monolithically designed and slow performing (towards the end of the page). The-right-thing to me is always functionally and computationally superior, it just takes longer to make.

I've never been able to make sense of the article either, and I've tried many times. I think it boils down to its title, which is just the right mix of vague and catchy to be optimal for getting repeated. The article itself is merely the title's host organism.

It's a classic and iconic piece of computer literature -- it even provided a common phrase used describe certain methodologies ("worse is better").

Not to mention it's quite short and to the point, this is not some academic or over-indulgent blah-blah.

As for the use of the word "worse" it makes perfect sense, and the context is very easy to pick up.

I can't even fathom how one could say it "wanders".

I suspect the essay itself might be an example of worse-is-better principle applied in practice. :)

My first impression was that author basically recommends quickly releasing ‘minimal viable products’ and expands on what should be considered ‘minimally viable’ for some specific kinds of software.

‘Worse is better’ is an interesting way to put it, though. I think it can be applied widely.

One way to avoid perfectionism is to constantly remind ourselves what's important, what's in MVP. Sure, there are a lot of things that are important for good product, but some are more important and we should focus on them first.

On the other hand, we can just remember that ‘worse is better’. No need to make yourself focus on what's important—it will come naturally once you label everything else ‘worse’.

It's hard to explain and I may have missed author's point, but that was one of takeaways for me.

The word "worse" might be worse than some other term Gabriel could have picked. But this article (written in 1989) was really pretty influential at the time, and cemented the phrase "worse is better" in a lot of peoples' minds.

The article even has its own Wikipedia page. Apart from whatever merits it might or might not have in itself, I think it's a worthwhile read because it made an impression on a lot of people back in 1989. It's one of the first explicit attempts to discuss the "Unix philosophy."