I’ve been writing software long enough to know one eternal truth:
Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution.
The “Quick Fix” T...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I totally feel you on this. It's like trying to tame a wild mustang - you think a quick fix will solve everything, but the more you try to wrangle it, the more tangled things get. Thanks for sharing your experience!
Really appreciate that — the “wild mustang” analogy is spot on 😄
You’re right, quick fixes often create hidden complexity and technical debt that explode later. In my experience, stepping back to simplify the architecture and fixing the root cause (instead of patching symptoms) usually pays off long term. Glad this resonated with you —
we have all been there:
What does this do 🤔️?
What 😕️
WTF 🙄️
WTAF 🤬️⁉️
This is so wrong on so many levels 😡 !
How did this even work 🤯?
Who wrote this 💩 ?
Ooooooops 😊🤫🤐😇
😂 We’ve all been there.
That moment when you question the code… then slowly realize it was your own commit from six months ago. I honestly think this is a documentation and review problem more than a “bad dev” problem. Without context, even clean logic turns into archaeology.
For me, the real fix is better naming, smaller functions, and leaving intent in comments — not just what the code does, but why. Curious though — what’s the worst “how did this even work?” bug you’ve seen in production?
There were so many in the last 30 years :-D - I can't even put my finger on it. Some caused by side effects in other parts of the system that this functionality relied on ("I don't see how this change would cause a bug here, these parts of the system don't even interact with each other.").
One thing I remember was a (drf) validator in a (de-)serializer, that did complex logic, multiple API calls and sweeping DB changes.
Totally feel this 😄 — those “there’s no way these parts even touch” bugs are always the most humbling ones. Hidden coupling across modules is real, especially when side effects sneak through shared state or implicit dependencies.
That DRF validator example hits hard. Putting complex logic, external API calls, and DB mutations inside a serializer is a perfect recipe for unpredictable behavior and painful debugging. In my opinion, validators should stay pure and lightweight — business logic and side effects belong in services or domain layers where they’re explicit, testable, and easier to reason about.
Really appreciate you sharing this — stories like this are exactly why architecture discipline matters more than we think.
This resonates deeply! The journey from temporary solutions to legacy nightmares is quite a ride. It's funny (and sad) how senior devs end up being the guardians of sanity, preventing overcomplication and managing real-world consequences of architectural decisions. Sometimes saying "no" is the most strategic move we can make when "innovation" is thrown around like a buzzword. Here’s to the art of minimalism in code! 🎨
Really appreciate this — you captured the reality perfectly.
You’re absolutely right: most “innovations” age into operational debt if we ignore complexity costs. As systems scale, the real challenge isn’t building more — it’s controlling coupling, blast radius, and cognitive load. Sometimes saying no is just good architecture hygiene.
I’m a big believer that constraints force better design. Curious — where have you seen minimalism win over hype in production?
Absolutely agree. Reminds me of an adage thrown around in the past: "Software is not released - it's allowed to escape".
Love that quote — it’s painfully accurate 😄
It really highlights how complexity, edge cases, and production reality always find gaps we didn’t anticipate.
This resonates deeply! Those 3AM incidents do leave a bitter taste over time hahaha
The real skill is saying No while giving convincing reasons why.
Totally agree 😄 3AM incidents build character… and caffeine tolerance.
You’re spot on — saying “No” isn’t about ego, it’s about protecting system stability and long-term maintainability. If we can’t justify trade-offs around scalability, technical debt, or operational risk, it probably shouldn’t ship. That balance is the real senior skill.