4 ms·

You are super-sensitive to over-engineering, so you over-engineered your requirements and ultimately your end product, just in a different methodology and frame

by lukeify 26d ago

You are super-sensitive to over-engineering, so you over-engineered your requirements and ultimately your end product, just in a different methodology and framework.

deleted 26d ago
[deleted]
mrb 26d ago
The requirements are not over engineered. They are what they are. Wireless and configurable chime. They are fixed parameters. But my implementation of these requirements is absolutely not over engineered. I argue it is the simplest and most reliable it could be done.
- whstl 26d ago
  “I was only following the requirements” at this point must be the Nurnberg defence of over engineering. If it quacks like a duck, doesn’t matter what you call it: it was over engineering.
  - mrb 26d ago
    It would be over engineered if one could design a system providing similar functionality using less hardware and less software. I challenge you to design a wireless doorbell that has a user-configurable chime, in a way that uses less software or less hardware than mine. You couldn't. In fact, if you did market research like me you would find that 99% of similar products have vastly more complex hardware or software or services being them. They break when there is no Internet. Some work without Internet but don't work when the local Wi-Fi is non functional. They don't immediately get back online after a power outage. They need regular software updates during which the chime can't play. These are over engineered things. Not my product, because mine has none of this complexity or faults.
    - whstl 26d ago
      Challenge accepted: "Similar functionality" here is the same doorbells that have existed for over a century. Done. :) If the requirements and constraints come from you, then saying "those are the requirements" doesn't settle anything. And is the same excuse people use for the over-engineered solutions you don't seem to like. It is over-engineering compared to a regular doorbell, period.
      - rantingdemon 26d ago
        OP stated it requires a user configurable chime. This is not a regular doorbell.
        ncruces 26d ago
        Yes, and the person engaged with them is pointing out that more complex solutions exist because someone added other requirements. Maybe “I want a configurable chime” is just a less popular requirement than “I want to be notified on my phone even if I'm not at home.” Also, Excel is famously complex because, despite most users only using 20% of the features, no one uses the same 20%, so if you want cover close to 100% of the market, you need to ship features that are useless to most of your users.
        whstl 26d ago
        > Yes, and the person engaged with them is pointing out that more complex solutions exist because someone added other requirements. Precisely. The Wi-Fi and Linux solution that was called over-engineered just happened to have different requirements. Engineering is a collaboration, not blindly solving very specific problems.
        close04 26d ago
        > Excel is famously complex because, despite most users only using 20% of the features, no one uses the same 20% I think you're comparing 2 very different scenarios here. Excel is solution engineered to meet every requirement under the sun, for every possible user. "The doorbell" is something designed and built by 1 person to meet exactly their own requirements. whstl (the other commenter) insists that he is better suited than the benefiter and builder of that doorbell to decide what is a good requirement and he's willing to make tasteless jokes comparing anyone who doesn't agree with his assessments to Nazis on trial at Nurnberg [1]. You'll notice that whstl didn't even ask why the requirement exists in the first place, just concluded it's wrong (it's something they teach you on day 1 of engineering school, build whatever you want, better if you don't ask questions where the answer might inconvenience you). When you have a requirement would you take the word of someone on the internet just saying it's not a valid one? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49506886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49506886
  - streetfighter64 26d ago
    Godwin's law was invoked quickly. It's not very hacker spirit to hear a story of somebody putting together a cool hardware solution to do something they wanted, and then complain that they wanted the wrong thing. > check out my hand-embroidered curtains, it's got exactly the flower pattern I wanted > yeah well you shouldn't want flowers on your curtains, just buy plain white ones from the store
    - whstl 26d ago
      I'm not really passing judgement on the project itself, or its validity, and I think it's cool. I'm perfectly fine with someone saying "I over-engineered this" or "I hand made this". I do this all the time myself... I'm just pointing out that "it's in the [my own] requirements" in this case does not really make something "not over engineered".
      - HelloMcFly 26d ago
        Is building a bookshelf with adjustable shelves is "over-engineered" because a single fixed plank would hold books just as well? Who gets to be the arbiter on which requirements are the "real" requirements?
        whstl 26d ago
        It should be considered fair to say that some things are over-engineered in relation to others. This is a matter of (hopefully informed) opinion after all. Also opinions will change after time, or after analyzing the problem space better. GP also said that lots of product in the market are over-engineered, so I don't see why my view (that this is an over-engineered doorbell) is controversial at all.
        streetfighter64 26d ago
        It's controversial because your definition of "over-engineered" is different from most other people's understanding of the term. Most people would take it to mean "using more complex systems than needed to achieve a given outcome", while you are defining it more like "using any system at all to achieve an outcome that I consider unnecessary". The former definition is somewhat objective in that it can be tested and proven, while the latter definition is entirely subjective and sort of meaningless. I could just as well state that any doorbell is over-engineered since you can just knock. > GP: The minimum of 5+x^2 is closer to 5.5 than 10 > You: If you were minimizing 3+x^2 you could get an even lower value
- deleted 26d ago
  [deleted]

by lukeify 26d ago

You are super-sensitive to over-engineering, so you over-engineered your requirements and ultimately your end product, just in a different methodology and framework.

deleted 26d ago

[deleted]

mrb 26d ago

The requirements are not over engineered. They are what they are. Wireless and configurable chime. They are fixed parameters. But my implementation of these requirements is absolutely not over engineered. I argue it is the simplest and most reliable it could be done.

whstl 26d ago
“I was only following the requirements” at this point must be the Nurnberg defence of over engineering. If it quacks like a duck, doesn’t matter what you call it: it was over engineering.
- mrb 26d ago
  It would be over engineered if one could design a system providing similar functionality using less hardware and less software. I challenge you to design a wireless doorbell that has a user-configurable chime, in a way that uses less software or less hardware than mine. You couldn't. In fact, if you did market research like me you would find that 99% of similar products have vastly more complex hardware or software or services being them. They break when there is no Internet. Some work without Internet but don't work when the local Wi-Fi is non functional. They don't immediately get back online after a power outage. They need regular software updates during which the chime can't play. These are over engineered things. Not my product, because mine has none of this complexity or faults.
  - whstl 26d ago
    Challenge accepted: "Similar functionality" here is the same doorbells that have existed for over a century. Done. :) If the requirements and constraints come from you, then saying "those are the requirements" doesn't settle anything. And is the same excuse people use for the over-engineered solutions you don't seem to like. It is over-engineering compared to a regular doorbell, period.
    - rantingdemon 26d ago
      OP stated it requires a user configurable chime. This is not a regular doorbell.
      - ncruces 26d ago
        Yes, and the person engaged with them is pointing out that more complex solutions exist because someone added other requirements. Maybe “I want a configurable chime” is just a less popular requirement than “I want to be notified on my phone even if I'm not at home.” Also, Excel is famously complex because, despite most users only using 20% of the features, no one uses the same 20%, so if you want cover close to 100% of the market, you need to ship features that are useless to most of your users.
        whstl 26d ago
        > Yes, and the person engaged with them is pointing out that more complex solutions exist because someone added other requirements. Precisely. The Wi-Fi and Linux solution that was called over-engineered just happened to have different requirements. Engineering is a collaboration, not blindly solving very specific problems.
        close04 26d ago
        > Excel is famously complex because, despite most users only using 20% of the features, no one uses the same 20% I think you're comparing 2 very different scenarios here. Excel is solution engineered to meet every requirement under the sun, for every possible user. "The doorbell" is something designed and built by 1 person to meet exactly their own requirements. whstl (the other commenter) insists that he is better suited than the benefiter and builder of that doorbell to decide what is a good requirement and he's willing to make tasteless jokes comparing anyone who doesn't agree with his assessments to Nazis on trial at Nurnberg [1]. You'll notice that whstl didn't even ask why the requirement exists in the first place, just concluded it's wrong (it's something they teach you on day 1 of engineering school, build whatever you want, better if you don't ask questions where the answer might inconvenience you). When you have a requirement would you take the word of someone on the internet just saying it's not a valid one? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49506886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49506886
- streetfighter64 26d ago
  Godwin's law was invoked quickly. It's not very hacker spirit to hear a story of somebody putting together a cool hardware solution to do something they wanted, and then complain that they wanted the wrong thing. > check out my hand-embroidered curtains, it's got exactly the flower pattern I wanted > yeah well you shouldn't want flowers on your curtains, just buy plain white ones from the store
  - whstl 26d ago
    I'm not really passing judgement on the project itself, or its validity, and I think it's cool. I'm perfectly fine with someone saying "I over-engineered this" or "I hand made this". I do this all the time myself... I'm just pointing out that "it's in the [my own] requirements" in this case does not really make something "not over engineered".
    - HelloMcFly 26d ago
      Is building a bookshelf with adjustable shelves is "over-engineered" because a single fixed plank would hold books just as well? Who gets to be the arbiter on which requirements are the "real" requirements?
      - whstl 26d ago
        It should be considered fair to say that some things are over-engineered in relation to others. This is a matter of (hopefully informed) opinion after all. Also opinions will change after time, or after analyzing the problem space better. GP also said that lots of product in the market are over-engineered, so I don't see why my view (that this is an over-engineered doorbell) is controversial at all.
        streetfighter64 26d ago
        It's controversial because your definition of "over-engineered" is different from most other people's understanding of the term. Most people would take it to mean "using more complex systems than needed to achieve a given outcome", while you are defining it more like "using any system at all to achieve an outcome that I consider unnecessary". The former definition is somewhat objective in that it can be tested and proven, while the latter definition is entirely subjective and sort of meaningless. I could just as well state that any doorbell is over-engineered since you can just knock. > GP: The minimum of 5+x^2 is closer to 5.5 than 10 > You: If you were minimizing 3+x^2 you could get an even lower value
deleted 26d ago
[deleted]