4 ms·

You can have any features you want, but people get to call it over-engineering if they say so, and "it's in the requirements" is not a shield against it.

• Dylan16807 1mo ago
  In the sense that people don't have to be right they can call anything over-engineering. But it helps to have somewhat objective criteria, like whether it was feature creep. And this was not feature creep. And custom sound for something like this is a desirable feature for the average person; you can look at the massive ringtone business in the 00s to prove that.
  • whstl 1mo ago
    It is also the right of anyone to call something feature creep, using their own criteria. > And custom sound for something like this is a desirable feature for the average person; you can look at the massive ringtone business in the 00s to prove that. And every AI startup should send a monthly Tulip to every user. The Tulip craze of the 1630s proves that.
    • Dylan16807 1mo ago
      What a broken analogy. These people were paying small amounts for something they directly enjoyed. And the main reason the business dropped away is because phones made it orders of magnitude easier to do it yourself. People like to customize sounds. Lots and lots of people. > It is also the right of anyone to call something feature creep, using their own criteria. I was listening to your potential argument for "over-engineered", but "feature creep" is pretty objective. This was not feature creep. OP wanted a specific feature from the start and even went out of their way to exclude lots of features.
      • whstl 1mo ago
        > These people were paying small amounts for something they directly enjoyed Tulips? > I was listening to your potential argument for "over-engineered" It wasn't me who made such argument.
        • Dylan16807 1mo ago
          > Tulips? Since you brought up tulips, you should know very well they were not paying small amounts and the problems all came from people that were not directly enjoying them. Your analogy between them and ringtone enjoyers is hopelessly broken. > It wasn't me who made such argument. First off, you did. You said "If it quacks like a duck, doesn’t matter what you call it: it was over engineering." and as a followup you said "Challenge accepted: "Similar functionality" here is the same doorbells that have existed for over a century. Done. :)". You started off actually participating in the discussion about whether the doorbell was over-engineered, and only later started trying to be so abstract and unfalsifiable. Second off, even if you hadn't written those comments and you had actually made yourself impartial about the doorbell itself, I would still say the same thing to you. Read this again: I was listening to your potential argument for "over-engineered", but "feature creep" is pretty objective. This was not feature creep. OP wanted a specific feature from the start and even went out of their way to exclude lots of features. My comment there doesn't even say you were calling it over-engineering. It says you were making arguments about it, which you were. You were defending the people calling things over-engineering by bringing up feature creep. So I pointed out feature creep is even weaker and doesn't apply here. Anyway, I could maybe think you honestly thought the second half of my post didn't apply to you. But your "Tulips?" response to the first half makes it clear you're being disingenuous and dodging. Prove me wrong? But I'm not holding my breath.
          • whstl 26d ago
            I merely argued that requirements don’t automatically absolve a judgement of over-engineering. If you disagree: fine. I don’t care about doorbells or Tulips.