'Worse is Better' is exactly about pragmatic reasons prevailing over idealism. The 'MIT Way' is the stereotyped opposite approach, and LISP is a great example of that: in theory it's the 'right way', but in practice it fails to address some aspect of real world needs somehow.
I understand that but I still dislike the "Worse is Better" characterization, which sounds very condescending to me and which is usually put forward by proponents of the languages that lost, hinting that the reason for the outcome is because people are stupid and picked the worse alternative.
Well, the originator was a 'losing' LISP guy who admired the robustness and practical effects of the other approach:
"However, I believe that worse-is-better, even in its strawman form, has better survival characteristics than the-right-thing, and that the New Jersey approach when used for software is a better approach than the MIT approach."
"There is a final benefit to worse-is-better. Because a New Jersey language and system are not really powerful enough to build complex monolithic software, large systems must be designed to reuse components. Therefore, a tradition of integration springs up."
Looking at how Go has became successful, which is basically Java 1.0 or if you prefer Limbo merged with Oberon-2, it isn't very far from how people pick languages.
At least the amount of insecure C code decreases, as it gets written in a safer language
