The notification pinged at 11:47 PM on a Tuesday. Our recommendation engine was down. Again.
I'd spent three months building this beast—10,000 lines of Python that could predict user preferences with surgical precision. Machine learning pipelines, feature engineering, real-time data processing. It was beautiful, complex, and completely unmaintainable.
Standing in the office kitchen at midnight, watching the incident dashboard light up red while our on-call engineer frantically tried to understand my intricate system, I had an epiphany that would change how I think about code forever.
The problem wasn't that my code was broken. The problem was that my code was too clever.
Six weeks later, I deleted almost all of it. Replaced 10,000 lines with 847. The new system was faster, more reliable, and—most importantly—boring. My manager called it "senior-level thinking" and fast-tracked my promotion.
Here's what I learned about the counterintuitive relationship between complexity and competence.
The Complexity Trap
Junior developers, myself included, measure success by lines of code written. We build elaborate abstractions, implement every design pattern we've ever heard of, and create systems that showcase our technical prowess. We confuse complexity with sophistication.
The recommendation engine was my masterpiece of over-engineering. I'd built:
- A custom feature store with real-time updates
- Multi-armed bandit algorithms for exploration vs exploitation
- Dynamic model retraining based on concept drift detection
- A microservice architecture with seven different services
- Custom caching layers with sophisticated invalidation logic
Each component was technically impressive. Together, they formed a Rube Goldberg machine that required a PhD in my specific thought process to understand.
When Sarah, our senior engineer, looked at the system during the incident, her first question wasn't "How do we fix this?" It was "Why does this exist?"
The Deletion Philosophy
"Show me a 10,000-line system and I'll show you 9,000 lines that shouldn't exist," Sarah said while we dissected my code at 2 AM.
She wasn't being cruel. She was being precise. Every line of code is a liability—something that can break, something that needs to be understood, something that adds cognitive load to every future change. The best developers I know aren't defined by what they build, but by what they choose not to build.
Deletion is a skill. It requires the confidence to throw away work, the wisdom to identify what truly matters, and the humility to admit when you've overcomplicated things.
After the incident, I spent a week asking one question about every component: "What happens if I remove this?"
The feature store with real-time updates? We were batch-processing recommendations anyway. Deleted.
The multi-armed bandit algorithms? A simple popularity-weighted random selection worked just as well for our use case. Deleted.
The microservice architecture? Combined into two services that actually aligned with our domain boundaries. Deleted.
The custom caching? Redis with a TTL did everything we needed. Deleted.
The Art of Strategic Laziness
The replacement system was embarrassingly simple. So simple that I was afraid to show it to my manager.
Instead of complex ML pipelines, we used collaborative filtering with matrix factorization—a technique from 2009 that was well-understood and battle-tested. Instead of real-time everything, we precomputed recommendations nightly and served them from a simple cache. Instead of microservices, we built a monolith that could be understood and debugged by any developer on the team.
The new system processed the same volume of data, generated better recommendations (because we could actually optimize it), and used 60% fewer resources. More importantly, when it broke—and all systems break—any developer could understand and fix it in minutes, not hours.
My manager didn't promote me despite deleting most of my code. She promoted me because I deleted most of my code.
"This shows senior-level judgment," she said. "You optimized for the team's success, not your own ego."
The Intelligence Paradox
There's a cruel paradox in software development: the smartest-looking code is often written by the least mature developers.
Junior developers write code to prove how smart they are. Senior developers write code to prove how smart they aren't.
When you're early in your career, complexity feels like competence. You implement every pattern, use every language feature, and build elaborate architectures because you can. You mistake difficulty for sophistication.
But systems don't exist in isolation. They exist in teams, in organizations, in contexts where other humans need to understand, modify, and extend them. The most intelligent code isn't the most clever—it's the most considerate.
Consider maintenance overhead. A complex system requires complex debugging skills, complex deployment procedures, and complex knowledge to modify safely. It creates bottlenecks where only the original author can make changes effectively.
Simple systems, on the other hand, distribute ownership naturally. When any team member can understand and modify the code, you've created scalable engineering culture, not just scalable software.
The Business Reality Check
The recommendation engine incident taught me something business schools don't cover: engineering decisions have compound interest.
Every abstraction layer adds cognitive overhead. Every microservice adds operational complexity. Every custom solution creates tribal knowledge that walks out the door when people leave the company.
My original system required three different monitoring dashboards, custom deployment scripts, and documentation that was longer than some novels. The replacement system used standard tools, standard patterns, and could be monitored with the same dashboards we used for everything else.
From a business perspective, the choice was obvious. The complex system tied up senior engineering resources for maintenance and required specialized knowledge for changes. The simple system could be maintained by junior developers and extended by anyone familiar with basic web service patterns.
Tools That Encourage Simplicity
Modern AI tools have changed how I approach complexity, but not in the way most developers expect. Instead of using AI to build more sophisticated systems, I use it to build simpler ones more thoughtfully.
When architecting a new system, I might ask Claude 3.7 Sonnet to help me identify the simplest possible implementation that could work, then work backward from there. The AI becomes a constraint generator—helping me find the minimal viable complexity for each problem.
For code review, tools like GPT-4o mini can help identify over-engineered solutions and suggest simpler alternatives. But the key is asking the right questions: not "How can I make this more sophisticated?" but "How can I make this more obvious?"
The Code Explainer becomes valuable for testing clarity—if you can't easily explain what your code does to an AI, it's probably too complex for humans to understand.
But the most powerful use of AI tools is as a sanity check for complexity. When you're deep in implementation details, it's easy to lose sight of whether you're solving the right problem with the right amount of effort.
The Subtraction Mindset
Deletion isn't just about removing code—it's about developing what I call the "subtraction mindset." This means:
Starting with the simplest thing that could possibly work. Not the most elegant, not the most scalable, not the most future-proof. The simplest. You can always add complexity later if you need it, but you can rarely subtract it without significant effort.
Optimizing for understanding, not performance. Unless you have concrete performance requirements that aren't being met, optimize for the next developer who will need to understand your system. This might be you in six months, and you'll thank yourself for the clarity.
Choosing boring technology. The most successful systems I've worked on use boring, well-understood tools. Not because the developers lacked imagination, but because they understood that innovation should happen at the business logic level, not the infrastructure level.
Measuring success by what you don't build. Track the features you decided not to implement, the abstractions you decided not to create, the optimizations you decided not to pursue. These decisions are often more valuable than the code you write.
The Learning Curve
The hardest part of developing the subtraction mindset isn't technical—it's psychological. You have to overcome the programmer's instinct to show off, to prove your worth through complexity, to build systems that demonstrate your technical sophistication.
I used to worry that simple code would make me look junior. That if my solutions were too obvious, people would think the problems weren't challenging enough to warrant my salary.
But the opposite is true. Simple solutions to complex problems are the mark of senior thinking. Anyone can make something complicated. It takes real understanding to make something simple.
The recommendation engine incident taught me that my job isn't to write impressive code—it's to solve business problems with the least amount of risk and complexity possible. Sometimes that means using boring CRUD operations instead of event sourcing. Sometimes it means choosing a monolith over microservices. Sometimes it means deleting three months of work and starting over.
The Network Effects of Simplicity
Simple systems don't just benefit the code—they benefit the entire team culture. When systems are easy to understand, knowledge spreads naturally. When changes are low-risk, experimentation increases. When debugging is straightforward, confidence grows.
Complex systems create knowledge silos and fear-driven development. Team members become afraid to touch certain parts of the codebase. Product requirements get filtered through "what's technically feasible" rather than "what's best for users." Innovation slows because the cost of change is too high.
Simple systems create the opposite dynamic. They enable rapid iteration, reduce the fear of refactoring, and distribute ownership across the team. They make good engineering practices easier to follow and bad practices harder to accidentally implement.
The Long View
Five years later, the simple recommendation system is still running in production. It's been extended, optimized, and modified by dozens of different developers. New team members can understand and contribute to it within days of joining.
The complex system it replaced would have required constant maintenance, specialized knowledge, and eventually a complete rewrite as requirements evolved and team members left.
This is the real test of engineering maturity: not whether your code survives the next deployment, but whether it survives the next team, the next set of requirements, the next architectural shift.
The best code is code that makes future change easy, not code that makes current implementation impressive.
Sometimes that means deleting months of work. Sometimes that means choosing solutions that feel too simple. Sometimes that means optimizing for maintainability over performance, clarity over cleverness, boring over brilliant.
But in the long run, simple systems win. They're easier to debug, easier to extend, easier to understand, and easier to replace when the time comes.
The 10,000 lines I deleted weren't wasted effort—they were expensive education. They taught me that the highest form of software engineering isn't building complex systems that work. It's building simple systems that work, that last, and that enable others to build on top of them.
-ROHIT
Top comments (0)