Avoiding Over-Engineering: A Guide to Software Design
Written on
Understanding Over-Engineering
In the realm of software development, teams often strive to be all-encompassing, creating norms and standards that seem ideal in theory. However, in practice, these standards can lead to significant challenges for the business side. Which phase of software development tends to attract the most scrutiny?
Whether you adhere to waterfall or agile methodologies, it’s often during the review phase of the design outline that issues arise. Are these reviews genuinely beneficial? Not usually. While some individuals may offer constructive feedback, others might be perfectionists, failing to recognize any imperfections in your plan.
Yet, when these critics are tasked with development responsibilities, it becomes apparent that many of them struggle with even the most fundamental functions.
This realization can be frustrating—it's as if you want to scream: let these critics step aside!
Understanding Coupling
Once a requirement becomes part of the code, coupling is inevitable; it cannot be entirely eradicated. Why not create an intermediary language to manage this coupling? The cost would be excessive and largely unnecessary. If such a need arises, it can be addressed during the refactoring phase.
I can also empathize with students grappling with database storage issues. Once a decision is made, striving for complete abstraction can become a luxury, demanding as much effort as switching programming languages.
This is more a matter of mindset than anything else. It may feel rewarding to critique during review meetings, but the implications of duration, necessity, and requirements often go overlooked.
However, if we permit coupling to expand indefinitely, we stray from our objectives. Evaluating this balance requires a specific level of expertise.
The Challenge of Component Replacement
Consider a project utilizing MySQL; it typically incorporates basic coding tools such as JDBC, MyBatis, and JPA. For those who seek a strict separation between interface and implementation, this setup can be frustrating.
Critics may argue that code reusability is impossible without an intermediary layer. They envision a scenario where switching from MySQL to ElasticSearch could be executed with minimal code adjustments.
"Have you considered the implications? If ElasticSearch becomes unnecessary, what happens to data stored in HBase?"
This dilemma aligns with the principles of Domain-Driven Design (DDD), which advocates for deconstructing basic database operations. If you extend this design philosophy, you may encounter similar issues across various technologies.
If Kafka is employed in your project, what happens if you decide to switch to Pulsar later? If HTTP is used, what if you want to transition to sockets? Most concerning is the language choice—if your project is in Java, how easily can you transition to Golang? Is it essential to invent an intermediary language to bridge these differences?
It's important to acknowledge that the Spring ecosystem has produced excellent components designed to address these challenges, such as Spring Data and Spring Cloud Stream. However, this does not justify over-engineering.
Conclusion
Thank you for engaging with this content. I eagerly await your continued support and hope you find value in my future articles.
Your Body Is A Design Disaster - This video critiques the pitfalls of over-design in software development, shedding light on how it can lead to inefficiencies and confusion.
Design for Disaster - This video explores how certain design choices can create unforeseen complications, emphasizing the importance of thoughtful design decisions.