If A is the good, B is the bad and C is the ugly, what does this statement imply? That:
- C is even worse than B
- C is something intermediate, not good, not bad
- C is "outside of the box" and can't be measured on A -- B scale
- C is good, but low on aesthetics ("ugly"), which lowers its value
- C is not just bad, but also unbeautiful, which makes it even worse than B
The one that triggered that question (link):
In a good world, this implies that we can effectively find a canonical form. In a bad world, this does not even imply that we can effectively find graph ids. In an ugly world, it implies that there are graph ids in FP, but none of these are of the canonical form kind.
Here I suppose it means "between good and bad".
The place where I first saw these words together, the GStreamer documentation:
gst-plugins-good a set of good-quality plug-ins under our preferred license, LGPL
gst-plugins-bad a set of plug-ins that need more quality, testing or documentation
gst-plugins-ugly a set of good-quality plug-ins that might pose distribution problems
Here I suppose it's "not on the good-bad scale".
- Go is easy to learn...
- Go ignored advances in modern language design...
- The dependency management nightmare...
Does it actually correspond to "good", "medium", "bad" here? Or is the division into "bad" and "ugly" simply arbitrary?