[kazinator]

I don't understand that this article at all or what it means by worse. It clearly defines what better means: that the architecture is such that implementing a feature is no harder than it absolutely has to be. So if it has to get worse first that means initially we're making it harder to implement the desired features? Why are we doing that? Are we counting a half-done, under-construction state? It's harder to implement a feature now than before because we partially wrecked the old architecture, and then you architecture is not done yet? Or is it because we're accounting all this new re-architecting work towards the cost of the first new feature? The first toilet install is hard because we have to do the whole plumbing in the building, and redo the sewage pipe out to the street? The second toilet is easy?

[tedunangst]

I don't think it holds up to much scrutiny. I think it's mixing up "less improvement than expected for the effort" with "actually measurably worse".