7 ms·

Don't overthink it. If you judge the engineering then you look at how the implementation reflects the requirements, not whether the requirements are good. Over

by buran77 16d ago

Don't overthink it. If you judge the engineering then you look at how the implementation reflects the requirements, not whether the requirements are good. Over-engineered simply means there is much more in that implementation than the baseline needed to tick off the requirements.

whstl 16d ago
I disagree. IMO this mindset is not how you make good engineering or good products. As an engineer (the traditional kind), I don't really appreciate nor can I afford the "not my problem" attitude of doing engineering in a vacuum, because in the end it's my responsibility.
- buran77 16d ago
  > As an engineer (the traditional kind) Isn't everybody? Your whole case rests on the insistence that OP's core requirement is no good. Not for any objective engineering reasons, just because you think so. I have a simple question that any engineer can answer in a heartbeat. Is a Christmas tree light installation with a bunch of series connected incandescent lights (I'm talking literally one of those classic Christmas lights set with absolutely no extra components or complexity beyond wires, bulbs, and plug) over engineered? Could you do it with even less engineering?
  - whstl 16d ago
    > Your whole case rests on the insistence that OP's core requirement is no good I never said it wasn't good. I just said it led to over-engineering a doorbell. "Good" or "bad" are words you're putting in my mouth.
    - buran77 16d ago
      Now you're trying to weasel out of this (whstl out?). I was trying to be diplomatic and use "good/bad" as shorthand for "should be part of a well engineered (not over/under) product or not". You don't like it, then let me use what you actually said: engineers who implement all the requirements given to them are like the Nazi soldiers who executed the people they were ordered to execute. Neither good nor bad, just over executing, right? I asked you a question because it was an easy way to apply your logic on something concrete, so you can see that if it fails on something so simple, maybe it's not actually useful at all. You pretended not to see it like a fine engineer with responsibilities. Tripped on a Christmas light.
      - whstl 14d ago
        > You don't like it, then let me use what you actually said: engineers who implement all the requirements given to them are like the Nazi soldiers who executed the people they were ordered to execute. Neither good nor bad, just over executing, right? And I said exactly the opposite of that. Doing bad things is bad, despite following orders. Over-engineering is over-engineering, despite following requirements.
      - whstl 16d ago
        I am also trying to be diplomatic and I would like for a more charitable interpretation of my messages. My whole point is that "something being in the requirements" is not a shield against something being considered "over engineering" by others. There's nothing more to it.

by buran77 16d ago

whstl 16d ago

I disagree. IMO this mindset is not how you make good engineering or good products. As an engineer (the traditional kind), I don't really appreciate nor can I afford the "not my problem" attitude of doing engineering in a vacuum, because in the end it's my responsibility.

buran77 16d ago
> As an engineer (the traditional kind) Isn't everybody? Your whole case rests on the insistence that OP's core requirement is no good. Not for any objective engineering reasons, just because you think so. I have a simple question that any engineer can answer in a heartbeat. Is a Christmas tree light installation with a bunch of series connected incandescent lights (I'm talking literally one of those classic Christmas lights set with absolutely no extra components or complexity beyond wires, bulbs, and plug) over engineered? Could you do it with even less engineering?
- whstl 16d ago
  > Your whole case rests on the insistence that OP's core requirement is no good I never said it wasn't good. I just said it led to over-engineering a doorbell. "Good" or "bad" are words you're putting in my mouth.
  - buran77 16d ago
    Now you're trying to weasel out of this (whstl out?). I was trying to be diplomatic and use "good/bad" as shorthand for "should be part of a well engineered (not over/under) product or not". You don't like it, then let me use what you actually said: engineers who implement all the requirements given to them are like the Nazi soldiers who executed the people they were ordered to execute. Neither good nor bad, just over executing, right? I asked you a question because it was an easy way to apply your logic on something concrete, so you can see that if it fails on something so simple, maybe it's not actually useful at all. You pretended not to see it like a fine engineer with responsibilities. Tripped on a Christmas light.
    - whstl 14d ago
      > You don't like it, then let me use what you actually said: engineers who implement all the requirements given to them are like the Nazi soldiers who executed the people they were ordered to execute. Neither good nor bad, just over executing, right? And I said exactly the opposite of that. Doing bad things is bad, despite following orders. Over-engineering is over-engineering, despite following requirements.
    - whstl 16d ago
      I am also trying to be diplomatic and I would like for a more charitable interpretation of my messages. My whole point is that "something being in the requirements" is not a shield against something being considered "over engineering" by others. There's nothing more to it.