3 ms·

If you agree it's a problem, I'm not sure why you think it shouldn't be talked about. Your (a) and (b) responses would come from an engineer who is not open to

If you agree it's a problem, I'm not sure why you think it shouldn't be talked about. Your (a) and (b) responses would come from an engineer who is not open to dialog, and I'd say from an engineer I'd prefer not to work with. I would add another option to your set of possible responses: (c) Let me now think harder about whether we really need database sharding and justify why I think it's needed, and allow this further analysis to possibly lead to a revised, simpler design. That's the route that the open-minded, discursive engineer will take.

darkerside 11y ago
I think the problem with a loaded term like "over-engineering" is that you are assuming they haven't fully through their idea through, and that's why they don't see things your way. I've seen much better results come from explaining why you think database sharding isn't necessary yet (even if you think the reasons seem obvious), and then asking your colleague to help you understand what you might be missing.
- yetanotherjosh 11y ago
  That's a reasonable perspective but the assumption I would be making isn't that they haven't thought it through, it's that they're using a higher bar for what's necessary, and are thinking it through from that point instead. The dialog is then about coming to a shared understanding of what the actual requirements really are. Therefore it's not critical or something to be taken personally about one's proposed implementation, it's the symptom of unclear requirements and the need to clarify them.
  - kybernetikos 11y ago
    > Therefore it's not critical or something to be taken personally about one's proposed implementation, it's the symptom of unclear requirements and the need to clarify them. Absolutely, and that's why I agree that the term Overengineering is an unhelpful shorthand that implies criticism to an unnecessary extent.

darkerside 11y ago

I think the problem with a loaded term like "over-engineering" is that you are assuming they haven't fully through their idea through, and that's why they don't see things your way. I've seen much better results come from explaining why you think database sharding isn't necessary yet (even if you think the reasons seem obvious), and then asking your colleague to help you understand what you might be missing.

yetanotherjosh 11y ago
That's a reasonable perspective but the assumption I would be making isn't that they haven't thought it through, it's that they're using a higher bar for what's necessary, and are thinking it through from that point instead. The dialog is then about coming to a shared understanding of what the actual requirements really are. Therefore it's not critical or something to be taken personally about one's proposed implementation, it's the symptom of unclear requirements and the need to clarify them.
- kybernetikos 11y ago
  > Therefore it's not critical or something to be taken personally about one's proposed implementation, it's the symptom of unclear requirements and the need to clarify them. Absolutely, and that's why I agree that the term Overengineering is an unhelpful shorthand that implies criticism to an unnecessary extent.