exactly this. I see it as this: over or under engineering can basically be boiled down to requirements and budget (which is itself a requirement, but many engin

exactly this. I see it as this: over or under engineering can basically be boiled down to requirements and budget (which is itself a requirement, but many engineers don't seem to see it that way). over engineering is anticipating for future requirements that aren't ever realized, or realized so far in the future that upfront cost outweighed the cost of putting it off for later. under engineering is not anticipating for future requirements that are realized before their cost outweighs the cost it would have taken to implement them upfront. somewhere there is a line, and on both sides you wasted money. if you perfectly engineered something, you spent the money optimally. in this industry, the idea you could perfect that is laughable. it's either over, or under engineered. reading a blog post gives you fuck-all for insight into a project or team's actual budget and requirements. driving by and shouting "over engineered" is a very clear sign of lack of experience, and one of the most uninteresting things you can add to a conversation about a company _literally starting their own bank from nothing_. so, OP, how would you under engineer your bank?