I'm an architect and I keep things simple too. The problem I have is people around me expect more complex/intricate solutions. They think simple is not sophisticated and savvy. They think the competition is ahead of our 'old, simple solutions'. I have to continually justify and explain that KISS is always the right approach.
Complexity can result from features which pay for themselves. Complexity is not automatically always wrong.
At scale, complexity solves problems that you might not otherwise realize exist. Some of these problems are intrinsically complex, they can't be solved with a simpler solution. Not without "simple" organically growing into a much worse mess than the dominant complex solution that was designed by acknowledging complexity from the start.
But what I want to respond to is your trying to explain that "KISS is always the right approach".
Rules of thumb like these are cheap.
They cause people to apply the same patterns regardless of the situation. Dispensing folk wisdom indiscriminately only serves to stop all thought and analysis.
Zealous rule-based engineering is the deathrattle of good systems design, and it makes me ill at ease.
Right, but because the ‘default’ inclination is towards ever increasing complexity, I still believe the mental exercise of attempting to simplify is almost always worthwhile.
Meaning to say, I find KISS almost universally applicable, there are not many situations where you wouldn’t want to try and simplify (if you can).
People don’t always agree on what simplicity is. To some, older proven technology is simpler, even if it requires more time, hustle and code to use. To the other, the same problem solved with a newer intricate tech, but solved quicker and leaner, is a simpler solved problem.
If they are just looking to sell things to make money without regard to quality, then they're probably right. People underestimate how large of a market that is.
