Somewhere along the way, we started measuring good engineering by how much we build.
New features, new frameworks, new abstractions. There's always something to add, improve, or replace.
But with experience, you realise that not every problem needs a solution. Sometimes, the existing solution is perfectly fine. We just get bored of it.
I've seen how easy it is to overcomplicate things in the name of scalability, flexibility, or simply following what's new. And while these things have their place, they also come with a cost. More code to maintain, more decisions to revisit, and more things for the next developer to figure out.
This is where I think seniority really shows. Not just in knowing how to build something, but in questioning whether it needs to be built at all.
Of course, saying no isn't always easy. Building something new is visible. Preventing unnecessary work rarely gets noticed. And there's a fine line between being thoughtful and becoming the person who opposes every new idea.
The trick is knowing the difference.
I'm not suggesting we stop experimenting or stick to old solutions forever. Sometimes, a rewrite is necessary. Sometimes, a new technology genuinely makes life easier.
But before jumping in, perhaps we should ask a simple question: What happens if we don't do this?
We spend a lot of time discussing what engineers should build. Maybe we should spend a little more time talking about what they should leave alone.
Because experience isn't just about knowing what works. It's also about recognising when something doesn't need fixing.