Being too successful is one of life's biggest risks (2004)

Lisp Machines weren't that successful. I was their target user, and I ditched Symbolics to use Lucid on Suns at the first opportunity.<p>The Lisp Machine software was appallingly baroque. Everything had every possible feature. There was no design, just implementation, and lots of it. The manuals took up a whole shelf, and it was generally faster to write something yourself than to find the predefined function that did it.<p>A lot of (arguably most of) the badness of Common Lisp is Lisp Machine culture showing through.

This is a good example of hacker writing in 10 paragraphs the sort of thing that has often been diluted into a 250-page business book.

Being too successful is a funny way of describing premature optimization and the risks behind great yet narrow specialization.<p>Specialists are by definition exceptionally successful in exceptional circumstances. I don't think that makes them too successful. It just makes them high risk-high reward takers.

The example cited is not death by too much success but rather death by not diversifying the product line.

The post made some interesting points about technical success not equating to real world success, but the whole article suffers from a poor definition of the word.

Funny, at Toastmasters last night our table topic was "what if you had a different mother?" and we got to pick moms from a random list. My random mom was Angelina Jolie, and I think I made a well-reasoned case that I would have fucked myself to death.<p>My point is that parent's success probably outdoes your own success.

Innovator's Dilemma?

high degrees of optimization lead to fragility. look at the current financial situation for an example.

Anyone know more about the author Erik Naggum? I have run into seen some old posts from him on the Python list and now this. A simple Google search reveals he is an academic/writer from Norway but not much more.

"Worse Is Better" again? =)