> Exactly. A thing so small and simple that you can rewrite it in an afternoon is more futureproof than any 8000 LOC monstrosity.
As I've said multiple times, here and elsewhere, it is easier to fix the problem of under-engineering that the problem of over-engineering.
I also disagree with the article's "pros" for over-engineering. There is no pro that I can think of that doesn't boil down to resume driven development.
The pros of under-engineering is (the way you say it) obvious: very little time was spent to figure out that you did it wrong.
"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system." -John Gall (Systemantics)
While not the intended audience, Systemantics is one of the most educating books on software architecture in existence.
Creating a computer to find "the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything", getting a cryptic answer and then creating an even bigger and more complicated computer to find the question is a pretty good satire of generative ai based chatbots of exponentially increasing model size.
Don't remember if it made it into the book, but from the radio series my favorite is the scene where they end up in a nightclub filled with dancing mannequins sprayed with sweat in order to convince people it was popular and come in.
Well, I am intrigued by the obvious analogies of Deep Thought and the prompt engineers (and their upcoming tools and their respective complexities) while on the other hand I already see the upcoming war between simple and dumb business interests on both sides that will try to make the fascinating und useful concept (which it is after all) consumable on one side while the other side will be ready to kill it if they don't get paid for it using/refrencing/quoting their pieces of work in its answers or "thinking"/modelling. Probably resulting in a cripled tool if politics won't visibly value educational gain over commercial interest.
Pain and joke too often come as closely bundled as within Adams's pointed work.
> a lot of the platform's value generation isn't being captured by them
I will add that neither is it made by them. Community creation, curation, moderation, posting, discussing, styling, accessibility, usability is all done through volunteers and community members.
That "value generation" isn't 100% theirs to consume should be fair.