I think boring could also be described as easily understandable. Kludgy could be interpreted to mean that all possible theoretical scenarios are not handled. Wo

I think boring could also be described as easily understandable. Kludgy could be interpreted to mean that all possible theoretical scenarios are not handled. Working could mean that the product works for the use cases it was intended for. In that case, I see this as a very positive pragmatic approach. You don’t waste time implementing features you “know” you will need in the future (you don’t know). You don’t waste time handling scenarios that make your feature theoretically complete and elegant but that have no significance to the users of the product. You go quicker to market and can more quickly iterate on your product. I think a much better approach is to implement these kludgy solutions that apply to the specific problem being solved. Then, you can revisit the code when it makes sense (e.g. the scope of the feature is being expanded, or just do it regularly to keep things healthy). Generally holding off on implementing things you don’t need will put you in a better position to implement the things you will need when you reach that point in the future.