Minimalism as Engineering

Minimalism in engineering is not austerity for its own sake. It’s the recognition that every addition, every dependency, every feature, every configuration option, has a cost: in complexity, in failure modes, and in the cognitive load on the team. This essay is about when and how to choose less.

The cost of more

Every line of code can have a bug. Every dependency can break or change. Every feature can be misused or can interact badly with another feature. So the default should be: do we need this? If we add it, we own it forever (or until we remove it, which is also work). The cost of “more” is undercounted because we focus on the cost of building, not the cost of maintaining, debugging, and explaining. Minimalism is the habit of counting the full cost and adding only when the benefit clearly outweighs it.

Where minimalism pays off

Dependencies: The fewer you have, the less you have to upgrade, audit, and debug. Prefer the platform (browser APIs, standard library) and small, focused packages. When you add a dependency, abstract it behind your own interface so you can swap or remove it later.

Features: Every feature is a promise to support, document, and not break. Cut features that don’t earn their keep. Ship the smallest set that delivers the core value; add only when there’s evidence of need. “We might need it” is not evidence.

Configuration: Options multiply complexity. Every flag is a dimension in the matrix of “does it work?” Prefer convention over configuration. When you do add options, make the default the right choice for most users and document the rest.

Code: Delete dead code. Refactor to reduce surface area. A smaller codebase is easier to reason about, test, and change. Minimalism in code is not fewer lines at any cost; it’s no unnecessary lines.

How to get there

Start with a budget. For dependencies: we allow N new dependencies per quarter, and each needs a justification. For features: we don’t add without removing something or without a clear success metric. For code: we delete as much as we add. Budgets force tradeoffs and make “no” easier.

Then, make removal a first-class action. Sunset features that aren’t used. Remove dependencies that are redundant. Prune options that nobody touches. Removal is not failure; it’s maintenance. Schedule it.

Finally, default to “no.” When someone proposes an addition, the burden of proof is on them. What problem does it solve? What’s the cost? Can we solve it with what we have? Often the answer is yes, we just hadn’t looked.

When minimalism isn’t enough

There are domains where you need more: compliance, integration with legacy systems, or a broad feature set because the market expects it. Even then, minimalism is a direction. Within the required set, minimize. Don’t add “nice to have” on top of “must have” without a clear reason. And keep the core small: the kernel of the system should be as minimal as possible, with optional layers around it. That way you get the benefit of minimalism where it matters most.

Summary

Minimalism as engineering is the habit of counting the full cost of additions, dependencies, features, options, code, and adding only when the benefit is clear. It pays off in maintainability, debuggability, and team cognition. Get there with budgets, with removal as a first-class action, and with a default of “no.” Even when you can’t be fully minimal, minimize where it matters. Less is more when “less” means less to break, less to maintain, and less to think about.