As a German, I might not have thought of that but would absolutely use it to translate Verschlimmbesserung. Does it sound "normal" enough to native English speakers?
The sibling post's "disimprovement" sounds more natural and has parallel form with pre-existing broadly accepted English words like "disincentive" and "disinfect".
It's totally plausible portmanteau. I get the feeling thought that it sounds more marked in English than in German where these kind of mashups are formed more freely.
It doesn't sound normal. "worse-" doesn't fit as a replacement for the "im-" prefix, because the "se" ending doesn't flow well into the plosive "prov".
"disimprove" works much better.
The similar word "unimproved" implies you did nothing to make it better, "disimproved" implies you actively made it worse.
But this is still just effectively adding "not" to the word. If you must join two words that are the antonyms of each other (like verbessern and verschlimmern), the closest match I can think of is the vulgar pun "fuxed", a blend of "fixed" (repaired) and "fucked" (broke). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fuxed
"updowngrade", funnily enough, I would understand as having the (IMO misunderstood/wrong) meaning you're trying to give to "Verschlimmbesserung" in your post here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49483585 (making some parts better and some other parts worse.)
That's not what "worseprovement" conveys to me, you can worseprove a single part, intending to make it better, making that same thing actually worse by the very same change.
It works, but regression is broader. If I'm not mistaken, a regression can also happen without human intervention. Verschlimmbesserung is active. Someone actually tried something and made it worse.
How about "bloat". Something that doesn't need to be there, and it would be better if it wasn't, but it was typically added with some misguided "good intentions". Bloat.
This also applies to changing something. If it was perfect, and you changed it, and now it's not perfect anymore, then the work itself didn't need to happen, and was therefore bloat.
Most work is bloat. But we have tied continued existence to work (mostly -- we mistake work for value), so we've made infinite bloating appear mandatory.
As an aside, most of the human psychology (assumptions, beliefs etc.) is also bloat, and similarly benefits from debloating.
Interesting. By this definition, a poorly chosen algorithm is also "bloat", which doesn't seem right to me.
I see bloat mostly as "unnecessary dependencies." Things which, if you removed them, the product would improve.
e.g. importing a whole library for what could have been a simple function.
If something justifies its "weight", then it's not bloat. It's functional.
But there's also "feature bloat." If a feature or change doesn't need to exist, or makes things worse, then it's bloat. If you removed it, the project would improve.
