Unix is the ultimate example of "worse is better." VMS, which is what the article is about, was definitely more elegant, easier to grok, and far better documented. So was IBM's VM which had what we now call "containers" working simply and reliably 30 years ago.
After 30 years away from it, I can't. But others have echoed my comments. Perhaps Bitsavers has some VMS doc. One thing was clear: you could learn VMS from the manuals. That wasn't the case with any Unix manuals I've ever seen.
> One thing was clear: you could learn VMS from the manuals.
Is that a defining characteristic of "elegance"? So far from the threads here all I've come away with is that VMS was easier to learn and/or had better docs, not that it was necessarily any better at actually performing work.
Turing proved that the only difference between any two computers is how easy they are to program and how fast they run. All computers are functionality equivalent in that every computer that can be made can solve all the same problems as any other computer which has ever (or can ever) be made.
So, in that sense, yes. VMS was more elegant than Unix because its design, syntax, and documentation made it easier and faster for users to grok and complete their tasks. As far as how fast or well the programs run, that's all about implementation details.
