Because unfortunately, someone proposing simplicity somehow means that it threatens another person's job security, which is quite frankly pathetic, even though it can lead to saving the business money and time.
The only valid excuse is whether the risk is worth it vs the potential gains. But the solutions that I prefer are the ones that offer minimal changes with massive gains rather than co-ordinating with hundreds of teams for years over an unrelated change.
If you have to do the latter for a tiny code change, then the architecture was most certainly built on a bad foundation, riddled with hundreds of brittle moving part waiting for an incident.
Comments
Because unfortunately, someone proposing simplicity somehow means that it threatens another person's job security, which is quite frankly pathetic, even though it can lead to saving the business money and time.
The only valid excuse is whether the risk is worth it vs the potential gains. But the solutions that I prefer are the ones that offer minimal changes with massive gains rather than co-ordinating with hundreds of teams for years over an unrelated change.
If you have to do the latter for a tiny code change, then the architecture was most certainly built on a bad foundation, riddled with hundreds of brittle moving part waiting for an incident.