Haha, I read through the beginning of that article which focused on hexagonal. While it was an over-complicated example, it didn't look too bad. But then skippe

Haha, I read through the beginning of that article which focused on hexagonal. While it was an over-complicated example, it didn't look too bad. But then skipped ahead to your quote. It definitely felt like satire to me! (Or at least I hope it was!). And that's where a balance is needed. No one seems capable of defining what good architecture is. We have plenty of posts about spaghetti code, architecture astronauts, etc. But there's few comments with success stories, especially about fixing a spaghetti codebase and what that project looks years down the road. And I think that's because the problem is multi-faceted. It's not "just" a technical problem. From a technical side, it's primarily lots of little patterns that as a whole add up to producing quality code. But there's also the social side, to hiring, reining in devs, enforcing the code patterns and quality, pushing back on business, etc. I can give lots of examples, but this would be a long post. All of these factors ultimately determine the fate of the project, the quality of the code, and whether it becomes spaghetti code or an over-engineered mess.