[wtetzner]

> There are two poles

I'm not sure I agree. I think you can write a simple-but-not-hacky implementation that does only what is necessary, and is also easy to maintain and extend later.

Of course, you never really achieve that ideal, but you can keep getting closer to it as you gain more experience.

[cubefox]

"Easy to extend" arguably means including more abstraction and making things more general than they need to be merely for solving the current problem. There is a trade-off here.

[wtetzner]

"Easy to extend" for me means keeping things decoupled (as opposed to adding extension mechanisms etc.).

Of course there's a tradeoff (there always is), I think my point was just that this option doesn't really seem like it fits between "quick and dirty" and "over engineered", though I suppose that probably depends on how you picture that continuum ;)