> I really disagree with the pros listed on over-engineering, specifically "future-proving" and "reusability"
Yes, someone who argues that "over-engineering" leads to "future-proving" is caught by the bug.
When you future-prove something, that's called "engineering". Over-engineering is by definition failing to foresee future needs, imagining generic future needs ten steps ahead instead of the less ambitious future needs two steps ahead.
It is easier to modify early, simplistic assumptions than it is to walk back from premature generalisations over the wrong things.
Yes, someone who argues that "over-engineering" leads to "future-proving" is caught by the bug.
When you future-prove something, that's called "engineering". Over-engineering is by definition failing to foresee future needs, imagining generic future needs ten steps ahead instead of the less ambitious future needs two steps ahead.
It is easier to modify early, simplistic assumptions than it is to walk back from premature generalisations over the wrong things.