"You don’t create “possible problems” of the future, you don’t pigeonhole the solution in to some tool you fancy learning and working with; that’s called over-e

"You don’t create “possible problems” of the future, you don’t pigeonhole the solution in to some tool you fancy learning and working with; that’s called over-engineering -- ..and keep it simple. That’s what being professional means." The author goes as far as making an analogy between doctor:chest-pain as programmer:program-features to argue the dangers of acting unprofessional but I'd argue that always acting professional can lead to insufficient solutions in the long run. Creating "possible problems of the future" is often what keeps me on track in the present. Often times I will finish developing a feature prior to fully writing its foundation so as to see how the feature might influence the foundation. It seems a bit ironic but I'd claim over-engineering is what keeps a code-base flexible to change. But perhaps the type of development I enjoy is unprofessional. It would make sense in explaining why I haven't made a dime on my code.