3 ms·

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

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.