I keep seeing “complex” or “complicated” used as catch-alls for approaches people don’t fully understand. It’s an easy label - sometimes just a reflex when the bigger picture isn’t clear. I think it’s often the result of missing perspective, context, or exposure to the problem space, and sometimes a lack of foresight about where things are headed. Still, slapping those terms on something without offering a real alternative feels empty - it’s noise pretending to be insight. I’m not pushing over-engineering or complexity for the sake of it, but plenty of problems are complex. Solutions have to scale, last, and tackle the messy unknowns and use cases they’re meant for - no more complex than needed, no less either.
Plenty of people think it’s all simple when they’re sketching the first 80%. Looks clean and feels easy until the last 10-20% rolls in. Actually, I most frequently hear this sentiment when it’s all theory and the person claiming it has hardly built anything towards the problem. Edge cases, real-world mess, the stuff that breaks your tidy plan. That’s where “simple” gets tested, and it usually falls apart. Real simplicity comes from working through the details and mastering them, showing up in the interface and integration points. Ignoring the hard parts doesn’t make them go away, it just delays the reckoning.
I’ve seen too many “simple” approaches collapse after a few use cases or the slightest curveball. They weren’t simple; they were just incomplete. Then, patching the gaps, complexity gets bolted on or sidestepped, and the mess grows worse.
These “complex” and “complicated” labels are vague nonsense half the time - not even measurable. People toss around that “genius admires simplicity, idiot admires complexity” line like it’s some deep truth proving their smarts. It’s not. It’s a useless platitude.