3 ms·
Maybe simpler: DOE Don't Over Engineer (which more or less brings us back to KISS principle)
by jaclaz 9y ago
Maybe simpler:
DOE
Don't Over Engineer
(which more or less brings us back to KISS principle)
- ChuckMcM 9y agoI like DOE because the inverse is E (Engineer). It illustrates an on going challenge in technology where the first question isn't "What capabilities should our resulting systems have? And what constraints are there on our implementation?" (which would be engineering a solution) instead we get the question "What other systems out there seem to solve this problem?", or worse "What other systems have similar inputs and outputs to the ones we have and want?"
- jaclaz 9y agoAlso there is this other question (as I see it): What CAN this (pre-chosen) something (insert here hardware or tool or programming language or library) do? Let's use ALL (or most) these functionalities! (because we CAN) Losing sight of the actual question which should be "What is actually needed"?
- shimon_e 9y ago>DOE Can be confused with Do Over Engineer.
- jaclaz 9y ago>>DOE >Can be confused with Do Over Engineer. YSNOE (You Shalt Not Over Engineer) which is more imperative is worse at reading. Maybe NOE (Never Over Engineer) would be acceptable.