alt Hacker News> Because that’s not what it said.
What it said is "I could do this simplistic thing now but ... that will be insufficient"
It LITERALLY says that it will not work, that it is not a good solution.
Even if Chet is wrong in his prediction, you quoted Chet and pretended that this thing that Chet is saying is a proof that this solution will work. This is so obviously not at all Chet's opinion.
And I'm sure you are going to INVENT "but Chet does not know what will happen in 3 weeks". Firstly, again, your "proof" is a quote from Chet, who, according to you, demonstrate that this solution is ok while that sentence is used by Chet to explain that the solution is not ok. But secondly, you have no idea why Chet is saying what he is saying, you INVENT that Chet does not know, does not have facts and numbers, while there are tons of real life example where it is easy and correct to predict that in 3 weeks something will not work anymore.
> ... inventing a whole situation outside of what the author described ...
I don't.
In the situation described by the author, is it true, is it factual that Chet thinks it will not work: YES, he is saying exactly that.
Is it factual that Chet is trying to provide more information but the author shut him down before hearing them: YES, this is factual.
Your only little argument is "let's imagine that Chet proposal, that he NEVER explains because he is interrupted, is bad". All I'm saying is that you have no idea what Chet argument is, you just assumed. This is fact. Can you tell me where, factually, in the written dialog, Chet explain his understanding and this understanding is indeed incorrect? Can you point me to these sentences? They don't exist.
You see "3 weeks" and concluded that "it is out of scope and/or over-engineered", which is obviously a bad conclusion as it is very easy to find plenty of example where this conclusion is totally wrong.
I don't want an alternate interpretation, there is no need for it. Does the author shut Chet down before Chet explains himself? YES. There is nothing to interpret, it's just a fact. Then, based on that, you said things that are BS, such as "Chet said '3 weeks' so it is the proof that it is out-of-scope". I then gave you a counter-example showing that your reasoning is wrong, and your only argument was "you invented this example so it does not count".
> What it said is "I could do this simplistic thing now but ... that will be insufficient"
> It LITERALLY says that it will not work, that it is not a good solution
You have a strange definition of insufficient.
> Can you tell me where, factually, in the written dialog, Chet explain his understanding and this understanding is indeed incorrect
Both the author and I never said that the complicated thing is wrong or incorrect. YAGNI is basically saying “not now”. Meaning we can revisit when the situation calls for it, but not today.
YAGNI is a matter of priority and resources allocation. You don’t solve problems you don’t have or unlikely risks.
Do you set up a cold room in your house and buy food for the next month because you know you will be hungry then? No. You buy a fridge and groceries for the next few days. Not because a catastrophic event can’t happen, but because your budget is limited and/or you have better things to do with that money.
Complicated things cost more than simple things (to build and maintain) and take longer to ship and produce value. The only reason to not go with simple thing is when it does not work, not when it’s insufficient. We already know it does not handle every little feature, but it will work for now.