I agree with the overall sentiment. One nitpick though
AI is the reason our software stack is overengineered to the 10th degree
I can confidentially state that this is not the case. Software for a long time now had been over engineered in many areas for a variety of reasons. Including, but not limited to, (un)intentional technical gate keeping, abstractions over abstractions over abstractions by companies looking to or selling the idea of “accelerating” development (llms in many cases extending this trend),and much more.
The situation we are finding our selves in now is not a cause. It is another symptom of a system that has been screwed up for a while.
I feel like “over-engineered” is a misleading term here. It implies that it was a deliberate engineering effort, when often it was just cancerous growth. No engineer would think “Oh, the Golden Gate bridge is aging, let’s build a brand new smaller bridge with less capacity on top of it to resolve the problem!”
The worst software constructs I’ve seen were a product of ignorant, rushed and/or disempowered developers. So, the opposite of engineering.
Imho it can be both as I have seen what you sketch out for sure. But don’t discount the over engineering done by highly technical people who (unknowingly) like making things complex. I also mentioned technological gatekeeping, I have seen projects first hand sold to management as being complex and needing specific knowledge in an attempt to keep “rifraf” at bay.
“Oh, the Golden Gate bridge is aging, let’s build a brand new smaller bridge with less capacity on top of it to resolve the problem!”
I distinctly seem to remember instances where bridges have been upgraded with an extra layer below on top.
At the end of the day we can nitpick about semantics around engineering all day.
But my overal message is that we have been converging on this overly complex mess from multiple directions for quite a while now.
And speaking of overengineering bridges, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was not overengineered when first built. It did not end well. But that’s bridges. This is software. Was the Apollo Guidance Computer overengineered? Given how harrowing the Apollo 11 landing was, I don’t think so.
I agree with the overall sentiment. One nitpick though
I can confidentially state that this is not the case. Software for a long time now had been over engineered in many areas for a variety of reasons. Including, but not limited to, (un)intentional technical gate keeping, abstractions over abstractions over abstractions by companies looking to or selling the idea of “accelerating” development (llms in many cases extending this trend),and much more.
The situation we are finding our selves in now is not a cause. It is another symptom of a system that has been screwed up for a while.
score 1 · canonical
I feel like “over-engineered” is a misleading term here. It implies that it was a deliberate engineering effort, when often it was just cancerous growth. No engineer would think “Oh, the Golden Gate bridge is aging, let’s build a brand new smaller bridge with less capacity on top of it to resolve the problem!”
The worst software constructs I’ve seen were a product of ignorant, rushed and/or disempowered developers. So, the opposite of engineering.
score 1 · canonical
Imho it can be both as I have seen what you sketch out for sure. But don’t discount the over engineering done by highly technical people who (unknowingly) like making things complex. I also mentioned technological gatekeeping, I have seen projects first hand sold to management as being complex and needing specific knowledge in an attempt to keep “rifraf” at bay.
I distinctly seem to remember instances where bridges have been upgraded with an extra layer below on top.
At the end of the day we can nitpick about semantics around engineering all day.
But my overal message is that we have been converging on this overly complex mess from multiple directions for quite a while now.
score 1 · canonical
And speaking of overengineering bridges, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was not overengineered when first built. It did not end well. But that’s bridges. This is software. Was the Apollo Guidance Computer overengineered? Given how harrowing the Apollo 11 landing was, I don’t think so.
score 1 · canonical
Sorry, with all due respect, but from the context it should become clear that this isn’t the sort of overengineering I mean.
score 1 · canonical