How do you spot over-engineering as it is happening, how do you communicate around this issue?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
How do you spot over-engineering as it is happening, how do you communicate around this issue?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Ashish Patel -
Murtuzaali Surti -
dev.to staff -
zvone187 -
Top comments (48)
I've seen many software engineers implement things that aren't in scope of their projects just because:
These are all warning flags for me, as an engineering manager, that the engineers will potentially over-engineer things that bring zero value for the customer.
When we follow the lessons of V-Model:
What I'm saying is, each step is based on the previous one and each step must be verified against the previous one. Anything else is over-engineering unless there are other business cases behind it.
You shouldn't identify over-engineering as it is happening because it might be too late to change direction. You should prevent over-engineering from happening.
Although there is a big advantage to stepping back during the design process and thinking of extensibility or abstractions which will allow features to be expanded easily, or suit alternate approaches without mass refactoring. Sometimes, these thoughts come at a later implementation phase, and we have had big wins by doing iterative stuff at a later point to "enhance" the offering rather than go back via the planning and design phases.
There is a big difference between "gold-plating" and forward-thinking, and the line between the two is extremely fine and easy to end up on the wrong side of!
I agree, and I think the difference is in how you approach it. You want to leave yourself open to extension, but not over-extend.
Start from the Minimum-Viable-Product and then iterate from there. If there are pet pieces that the developers would like to make along the way then you let your customer handle prioritizing that work.
There is another side of this issue that you mentioned. If people are trying to push projects into a new language then they obviously have interest in learning something new and are not given an outlet for that energy. Letting them get some down time to work on a small pet project to learn a new language and report back as to how it performs would be great. Help them to understand that there is a time for experimenting and the Customer's product should not be that.
how do you address over engineering when the person who is doing is the architect/fo-founder.
lets build a user management system with log-queue pattern, you know so each web app can manage their own users (which they dont, all collections need to be in sync otherwise the app breaks). have 3 micro service, one which for crud on the source and the other two are responsible for replication.
WTH.
Amen.
I know a few people who are overengineering stuff all the time, just for the sake of what if... Meanwhile, there are a bunch of serious problems with the apps they're working on. I guess that most of them hope that the problems would just go away on their own.
Great comment
GREAT post!
keren sekali penjelasannya mas galuh saya terpana
Instructions unclear. Duct tape soaked in WD-40. 😵🤪🙃
I once saw someone trying to remove marks left on a glass table by duct tape. She thought I was joking when I told her what would remove it. WD-40 - works every time. No idea how to remove that though.
Using external libs for trivial problems. Reinventing the wheel isn't good but very often the real problem is easier to solve than people think.
Also, forcing to use design patterns everywhere without thinking if they match requirements makes code crappy after time. They are for special purposes but some people are trying to put them everywhere.
I've been guilty of the latter. It used to be that when I found a new pattern I would put it everywhere. I justified it by telling myself that I was learning about it, but all I was doing was stalling a release. Quick and dirty, while not always the best solution, isn't always the worst, either.
I think over engineering can often be synonymous with over abstracting. As developers, we often build abstractions to future proof our software. Unfortunately, we can often plan for a future that doesn't exist. Since we get more information about the future as time goes on, it can be a better practice to defer building abstractions until we have more information. This helps us avoid unnecessary complexity, and make decisions based on data, rather than guessing :D
Sandi Metz has an awesome article about this topic. sandimetz.com/blog/2016/1/20/the-w... This article has some great words of wisdom in it "duplication is far cheaper than the wrong abstraction" and many others.
I think Jeffrey Way would agree about over abstraction. When I was learning Laravel, a lot of times he would say to not worry about abstraction until it became clear that a part of the code was going to start getting messy. He'd also show a good number of ways to accomplish the same thing, depending on what's needed.
I'm guilty of this a lot. And it requires my teammates to tell me that so far. I feel like maybe it's a step-back-and-look thing. Or maybe stopping before diving straight into a problem and trying to see if there's already something in an existing lib or codebase to do it simply.
Personally, I find the term "over-engineering" to be about as helpful as describing code as "bad." Baked right into the word is relativism centered on the speaker's axiomatic perception of themselves as the correct arbiters of "Goldilocks engineering." In other words, I would define "over-engineering" as "a descriptor indicating that the speaker doesn't fully understand the context of someone else's design decision, but knows they don't like what they do understand."
To give this a concretion, I spent a bunch of years doing a specialized form of management consulting that involved using static analysis to help enterprise IT leaders make decisions about codebases. In other words, I earned a living analyzing codebases and the decisions of the engineers who brought the codebase to its current (usually bad, since people never called me to tell me how great things were going) state.
This led me to find myself looking at a lot of codebases that had what most would probably agree was "over-engineered solutions." Here are some particularly fun ones:
The list goes on.
But here's the thing. "Over-engineering" is a judgement-assigning, dimestore root cause analysis that doesn't matter. Those designs had actual, tangible problems that had nothing to do with what the designer was (over) thinking:
So, I guess for me the tl;dr is "when cataloging issues with a codebase/design, and especially when communicating them, I try to stay away from personal taste and deal instead in cause/effect reasoning and tradeoffs being incurred by the design choice."
I guess you heard that you overengineered stuff enough to dig yourself in a defense of it. That will be a tough one to defend, especially considering how often startups fail because they are polishing their kubernetes config and polishing CI instead of getting paying clients.
Example:
I can perfectly understand react app, but when i see business card-type of page done in react+redux, its overengineered. Period.
Even if I didnt understand it, i can still judge when someone is clearly using wrong tools for the job.
Period spelled out? Wow, you must be right.
I imagine that always settles the matter at code review for you, especially when you yell it. Glad you showed up to correct me!
(BTW, what you're describing -- speculatively adding unneeded functionality -- is called gold plating. People commonly use "over-engineering" to describe something else)
Cool.
Overengeneering is when you add architectural complexity for a perceived (rather than actual) future need. The trick to avoid this, though it's by no means self-evident, is to leave open a path for future change, without already paving that path right now.
Anything for the future is not for the now so should be looked at with a sceptical eye.
I just spent 2 evenings on a personal project trying out different sub module and other strategies but in the end it all felt insane so I just stopped. No with that distraction out of the way I managed to refine my release scripts so that they at-least work.
In my side projects, I know I've over-engineered when not even Git could save me from my spaghetti code... 😔
Simply put, if a given "enhancement" requires more than a fractional- or even trivial-effort to implement but puts delivery timelines at risk for something that's likely not even in scope for the next major phase of the project, somebody's probably lost the ball.
Over-engineering is often solving problems that are either future problems that don't actually exist, or solving problems that were caused because of previous code.
An example is a developing a custom templating language instead of using an ERB file. This is an example of a problem that doesn't exist, creating super customized, ultra-flexible systems that most likely will never be used to their full potential. Often these systems use layers and layers of abstractions in order to get 'clean' code.
Also be careful because the term "over-engineering" is used as a cudgel by people who want to talk smack about code they might not really understand or that feels complex to them, when in reality it might solve a problem really well. It takes a while to fully understand a complex problem, and a complex solution that solves it.
I actually had a good discussion last night about this in terms of 'perfection v time to market' (which I know is only part of the issue), and I had a realization that the legendary Microsoft 90% rule is a great balance for this debate. It provides a valuable product while allowing the last bit of development to be refocused by actual user feedback.
Hi Ben. Another cool discussion about a real-world topic. I planned to write a post about over-engineering for a few weeks now.
This discussion reminded me to get back to my draft and finish it.
I published it a few minutes ago. You can find it here:
Over-engineering is real
Lars Richter ・ Jul 15 ・ 4 min read
But to answer your question, I think over-engineering is all about adding additional complexity to code that could be much simpler.
I think most (experienced) developers (including myself) have been guilty of over-engineering. Remember the day when you learned a framework/design pattern/tool that you thought is really cool. That is the same day when you excessively start to look for places where you can use it.
It happened. And it will happen again. We will just have to find a way to deal with it in a solution-oriented way.
I think this varies hugely on what level of the stack you're operating at.
At the front-end, redesign is relatively cheap, so the ideal way of building things is to be very "lean", and build the minimum possible. If you need to build something more, the old can usually be thrown away without penalty if that's the quickest path.
As we descend the stack, the cost of change increases - so we need more care in the work we do, and there's more "passive provisioning", where we deliberately build gaps for future functionality - and sometimes actually build the future functionality since it's easier than just leaving a gap.
Often, old architectures and API points have to live in the system, and be maintained, for significant amounts of time afterward - for support of mobile apps etc.
Infrastructure is even worse - changing infrastructure architecture can be time-consuming and risky. It's best to get that right first time.
In the worst case, standards development, we're trying to build the design itself, and we're stuck with that for years, if not longer.
We often try to minimize the cost of failure in our professional - "Lean", "Agile", and "MVP" all derive from this. We also, of course, have to minimize the cost of success.
Over-engineering isn't simply doing more engineering than is needed; it's doing more effort than the cost of success warrants.
I'm of the opinion that code quality is the thing that enables us to move quickly in a code base... I get concerned about over engineering when someone anticipates a need for future changes and then sacrifices clarity for something that has a low possibility of happening. I have no idea how to communicate about this though. I'm a junior engineer working with exclusively senior engineers.