<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>uuddlrlrbaba</author><text>Because more often than not good enough &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; good enough.  Electron is a great example.  Look at the market share of slack, discord, spotify, etc.&lt;p&gt;Optimizing as step one is a very good way to not ship on time and miss opportunities to competition.</text><parent_chain><item><author>j1elo</author><text>On the other hand, in software-related matters, I have the increasing feeling that kludges and temporary decisions made in the &amp;quot;First do it&amp;quot; stage, tend to get carried on to infinity through the other phases.&lt;p&gt;Thus, lots of stuff that falls in the &amp;quot;Important, but Not Urgent&amp;quot; category of the Eisenhower Matrix end up never getting its proper development time. One could argue &amp;quot;well, then maybe they weren&amp;#x27;t actually that important, were they?&amp;quot; but I&amp;#x27;d reply that usually the criteria to define something as important is measured with growth potential, and that&amp;#x27;s the wrong bar to use.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s how we end up with &amp;quot;we&amp;#x27;ll build it in Electron for the time being and later will rebuild in proper native apps if the idea works&amp;quot; ends up being still Electron 10 years later. Or how &amp;quot;we&amp;#x27;ll make our own controls and later worry about accessibility&amp;quot; turns out never worrying about it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>First do it, then do it right, then do it better</title><url>https://twitter.com/addyosmani/status/1739052802314539371</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jamiek88</author><text>I don’t think that’s specific to software.&lt;p&gt;After all the phrase ‘there’s nothing so permanent as a temporary repair’ comes from construction.&lt;p&gt;I think the difference is rules and licensing were created around physical repairs and construction because of the human tendency to ‘good enough’ it.&lt;p&gt;And to be fair software that has the same safety importance as bridge sturcutural calculations does have a level of scrutiny around it commensurate with its importance, see NASA and their caution and flight &amp;#x2F; avionics software for aircraft etc.</text><parent_chain><item><author>j1elo</author><text>On the other hand, in software-related matters, I have the increasing feeling that kludges and temporary decisions made in the &amp;quot;First do it&amp;quot; stage, tend to get carried on to infinity through the other phases.&lt;p&gt;Thus, lots of stuff that falls in the &amp;quot;Important, but Not Urgent&amp;quot; category of the Eisenhower Matrix end up never getting its proper development time. One could argue &amp;quot;well, then maybe they weren&amp;#x27;t actually that important, were they?&amp;quot; but I&amp;#x27;d reply that usually the criteria to define something as important is measured with growth potential, and that&amp;#x27;s the wrong bar to use.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s how we end up with &amp;quot;we&amp;#x27;ll build it in Electron for the time being and later will rebuild in proper native apps if the idea works&amp;quot; ends up being still Electron 10 years later. Or how &amp;quot;we&amp;#x27;ll make our own controls and later worry about accessibility&amp;quot; turns out never worrying about it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>First do it, then do it right, then do it better</title><url>https://twitter.com/addyosmani/status/1739052802314539371</url></story>