3 ms·
Of course you can call things over engineered, but seem to want to include questioning the requirements, specifically also those of the example we're talking ab
by dxdm 1mo ago
Of course you can call things over engineered, but seem to want to include questioning the requirements, specifically also those of the example we're talking about.
Once you start that, you also need to stop somewhere. For example, we could even question the need for a door in the first place. Not saying that we should, but if you want to take over defining other people's requirements, you're putting this on yourself.
So if you don't want somebody else to call you out for over engineering somebody else's requirements, where do you stop?
It's not an enviable position to be in. :)
- whstl 1mo agoI am just saying over and over that the over-engineering part itself can come from a "requirement", which seems to be the contentious position here. Some other people mentioned the doorbell project was over-engineering and I just agreed with them.
- dxdm 1mo agoI agree that requirements need to be kept in check to avoid over engineering. However, I think it's hard to decide for other people far away what their requirements ought to be. So I don't agree that you can call mrb's basic wireless doorbell "overengineered" for requirements reasons alone without opening yourself up to the same scrutiny that you're applying to him.
- whstl 1mo ago> I agree that requirements need to be kept in check to avoid over engineering Then we are in agreement! The person who originally called it "overengineered" wasn't me, it was another user. I did joke that an electric doorbel "does a similar job" but that was to demonstrate that "similar" is also a judgement call. I am just saying that lukeify or anyone can call it overengineered from their point of view, similar to how GP called commercial products overengineered.