WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

1.2K

I'm talking about the idiots who decide to over engineer software to insanity. Like yes, I understand proper architecture and engineering. No, i dont agree that every single module has to be engineered to perfection. Also these same assholes are usually the people who routinely ignore their own code standards, and try bugging me to quick approve their clearly not good looking code. Than they come back and nit pick over mindless idiotic pedantics.

I'm talking about the idiots who decide to over engineer software to insanity. Like yes, I understand proper architecture and engineering. No, i dont agree that every single module has to be engineered to perfection. Also these same assholes are usually the people who routinely ignore their own code standards, and try bugging me to quick approve their clearly not good looking code. Than they come back and nit pick over mindless idiotic pedantics.

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

Reusable software is almost never reused. And the extra effort to write, review, test, and debug is bad tradeoff.

[–] 1 pt

This is the correct answer. I have rarely seen any of these conventions lead to any sort of productivity increase. I was talking to my new job, and we both agreed that over abstraction is dangerous, since it can give too much information about architecture. This is also very true of the current micro services architecture trend, where you have an endpoint for everything