7 ms·

Is building a bookshelf with adjustable shelves is "over-engineered" because a single fixed plank would hold books just as well? Who gets to be the arbiter on w

Is building a bookshelf with adjustable shelves is "over-engineered" because a single fixed plank would hold books just as well? Who gets to be the arbiter on which requirements are the "real" requirements?

whstl 17d ago
It should be considered fair to say that some things are over-engineered in relation to others. This is a matter of (hopefully informed) opinion after all. Also opinions will change after time, or after analyzing the problem space better. GP also said that lots of product in the market are over-engineered, so I don't see why my view (that this is an over-engineered doorbell) is controversial at all.
- streetfighter64 17d ago
  It's controversial because your definition of "over-engineered" is different from most other people's understanding of the term. Most people would take it to mean "using more complex systems than needed to achieve a given outcome", while you are defining it more like "using any system at all to achieve an outcome that I consider unnecessary". The former definition is somewhat objective in that it can be tested and proven, while the latter definition is entirely subjective and sort of meaningless. I could just as well state that any doorbell is over-engineered since you can just knock. > GP: The minimum of 5+x^2 is closer to 5.5 than 10 > You: If you were minimizing 3+x^2 you could get an even lower value
  - whstl 17d ago
    I am not saying every product has to be the absolute minimum, that's an absurdist interpretation of what I mean. I am saying that people can call something "overengineered" and "it was the requirement" is not a defence. Maybe what I mean is: Feature creep does contribute to overengineering. That's not controversial in the engineering community at all.
    - Dylan16807 16d ago
      > I am not saying every product has to be the absolute minimum, that's an absurdist interpretation of what I mean. > I am saying that people can call something "overengineered" and "it was the requirement" is not a defence. Okay, so you're not saying to reject all above-minimum features, but then there seems to be no objective criteria, so who is deciding which ones to reject? Why is it not the customer? And it's not a does-nothing feature either, it has a meaningful impact on the user. > Maybe what I mean is: Feature creep does contribute to overengineering. That's not controversial in the engineering community at all. A requirement from the start, the baseline of the product pitch, is the opposite of feature creep.
      - whstl 15d ago
        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 15d 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 14d 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 14d ago

whstl 17d ago

It should be considered fair to say that some things are over-engineered in relation to others. This is a matter of (hopefully informed) opinion after all. Also opinions will change after time, or after analyzing the problem space better. GP also said that lots of product in the market are over-engineered, so I don't see why my view (that this is an over-engineered doorbell) is controversial at all.

streetfighter64 17d ago
It's controversial because your definition of "over-engineered" is different from most other people's understanding of the term. Most people would take it to mean "using more complex systems than needed to achieve a given outcome", while you are defining it more like "using any system at all to achieve an outcome that I consider unnecessary". The former definition is somewhat objective in that it can be tested and proven, while the latter definition is entirely subjective and sort of meaningless. I could just as well state that any doorbell is over-engineered since you can just knock. > GP: The minimum of 5+x^2 is closer to 5.5 than 10 > You: If you were minimizing 3+x^2 you could get an even lower value
- whstl 17d ago
  I am not saying every product has to be the absolute minimum, that's an absurdist interpretation of what I mean. I am saying that people can call something "overengineered" and "it was the requirement" is not a defence. Maybe what I mean is: Feature creep does contribute to overengineering. That's not controversial in the engineering community at all.
  - Dylan16807 16d ago
    > I am not saying every product has to be the absolute minimum, that's an absurdist interpretation of what I mean. > I am saying that people can call something "overengineered" and "it was the requirement" is not a defence. Okay, so you're not saying to reject all above-minimum features, but then there seems to be no objective criteria, so who is deciding which ones to reject? Why is it not the customer? And it's not a does-nothing feature either, it has a meaningful impact on the user. > Maybe what I mean is: Feature creep does contribute to overengineering. That's not controversial in the engineering community at all. A requirement from the start, the baseline of the product pitch, is the opposite of feature creep.
    - whstl 15d ago
      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 15d 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 14d 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 14d ago