Maintainability is one of the most important if not the most important goal when programming. If a dev only designs a solution that fits for exactly the current situation but doesn't allow any changes, it's not a good dev.
But yeah, if you start small, a solution that's made for that is preferable. You can still refactor things when you get magnitudes larger and have the budget.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The tricky thing about software development is this balance: you don't want to hobble your system by designing only for today, because that could waste a whole lot of time later when needs change, but you also mustn't paralyze the project by designing for all possible tomorrows. Finding a middle path is the art, and the only proof that you got it somewhat right is that things get done with relatively few crises.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If a dev only designs a solution that fits for exactly the current situation but doesn't allow any changes, it's not a good dev.

I don't think anybody is arguing this. Nobody (in my decade-plus in this industry) actively codes in a way to not allow any changes.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

You evidently haven't met my colleagues. There are always people who go for the quickest hack despite the trouble it stores up for later, and they're usually encouraged by management.