MIT v. New Jersey is a false dichotomy. MIT tends to put the cognitive overhead on the callee, where New Jersey does so on the caller. New Jersey tends to eschew in-depth architectural modeling leading to insufficient generality and flexibility, whereas MIT creates overly coarse-grained results from axiomatically underthought standards for &quot;correctness&quot; and an overbearing sense for what is &quot;complete&quot; (which usually starts to infringe on mechanism and begins making policy decisions, hence again lowering generality).<p>New Jersey gives you the web. MIT gives you systemd.<p>Neither school has been all that effective in reliability, dependability or even composability (especially not interposable interfaces). Neither school is <i>elegant</i> in the slightest.