An average software engineer will create an overly complex system.
If a skilled engineer can come in and create something that doubles team productivy, decreases bugs by 60% and improves retention across the org by 10x, that's huge! That's not a 10x engineer, that's a 100x engineer.
The biggest problem with a simple architecture and often why someone would complexify it up, is as a protection mechanism so you don't get some performance review motivated yokel doing a drive by to add in a feature and look like a rock star because it was so damn easy. NSS, that was the next step. You see this in open-source as well. Someone builds a beautiful foundation, and Steve rolls up with a submarine pull request to slam that cherry on top.
A complex architecture ensures that you can adequately gate keep.
The next aspect is you have to relentlessly say no to feature requests that literally destroy the system to add some new feature, the pressure to smash it to bits and make it a no longer simple system is such a perverse incentive that unless you have support from on high, every simple system will decay into a total mess, then the finger-painters will have moved on to some other system to predate on.
Anything specific that tends to be used often?
At 48 I've stopped fixing other people's things.
I almost said that I’m surprised they weren’t held accountable… but we all know better.
Why are folks taking the path of least resistance becomes an interesting question.
Similar to the expression "Up to scratch." In a boxing ring, there is a line in the ring that boxers must come to to begin the fight. To be "up to scratch" is to be ready and worthy of the fight, and from that, to be of acceptable quality or capability.
"Toe the line" most likely has it's roots in military tradition [1]. To toe the line is to stand at the line for inspection - it's still used that way today (I had to do it myself in boot camp).
Relevant, as in this context, it means being obedient to the hierarchy.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line#:~:text=The%20mos....
Would you rather have a simple system that does nothing, or a complex / difficult-to-work with system that solves customer needs? It's easy to go too far in either direction.
And even if your framework is to use customer needs as justification for complexity, people will still use something like Kubernetes for an app with 10 monthly users, because it "helps us deliver features faster, have zero-downtime deployments and be scalable".
Most (non-product) engineers have a natural inclination to introduce more complexity, and will use mental gymnastics to justify it.
With respect, this is clearly a false dichotomy.
Creating the "simplest possible system" that solves customer needs is the entire point of this discussion. Avoiding as much complexity as possible brings enormous benefits. (Less bugs, less employee turnover, higher productivity, etc.)
Never accept the notion that systems must be "difficult-to-work with" in order to solve customer needs.
My point is that there are many, many developers who "relentlessly say no to feature requests that literally destroy the system to add some new feature" when the reality is that they do not want to put in the effort required to add the (meaningful) feature to the system.
They are choosing system purity and laziness over delivering customer value, which requires more work in order to keep things simple.
Just today, for example, I removed several thousand lines of code from a very complex form that no customer ever really used other than for testing. My boss told me "just nuke it". Life goes on.
As an engineer you just have to ensure you have equity in the small company before it's purchased and/or hope the big company buys your company rather than just copying it and fighting you in court for a decade.
You'll end up with a "I programmed a little bit back in the day" person who makes decisions based on how to currently keep their staff best utilized. Tools choices, boundary points, stacks, become chosen based on goals that are not rooted in design simplicity.
I've watched this story play out again and again and again at companies. Upper management will promote these types of individuals into lower/middle management because
a) they're deemed actually reassignable whereas a really talented Ux designer is obviously adding the most value doing that
b) people buried/invested in tech stack/design details are harder for owner/operators to relate to than individuals more like themselves.
Great delegation and engaging with community feedback productively are of course part of that strong management.
I actually expected to find that it was a fake quote. Lately, I keep finding that many of the good quotes are actually fake. It’s like they actually survive on the value of the quote and, if we’re honest, whether someone decades or centuries ago actually said it is only tangential.
But thx for the correction!
I agree that anything else is extra, but most of my difficult professional engineering decisions are tradeoffs between those first two things: I can build on an older system less well adapted to current needs and deliver more quickly, or build something that fits current needs better but takes a bit longer. I sadly don't have enough days in life where there's a better and quicker option!
Put differently, it's a lot faster to put another layer of duct tape on top of the last duct tape patch of a pipe leak. But every layer of duct tape you put on makes it more difficult to replace the pipe segment underneath. Developing judgement on when to do which is the (difficult) trick.
We deliver the duct taped one one time so the software folks can start their work, and then we build the non-duct taped one wheel it in a week later and quietly swap it out for the duct taped one.
You're speaking of ChatGPT!