[nmyk]

Where's the fallacy? She's saying the only systems that are beautiful are the ones that haven't been forced by massive spontaneous adoption to scale faster than the developer(s) can come up with and implement a beautiful design to meet the new requirements.

Maybe you think if the original system were _really_ beautiful and of high quality, it would have scaled with the adoption on its own, with no need for ugly patches... but in that case the original system would have had the capacity to do a lot more than what was originally required. It would have been overengineered, in other words, and it would have been more beautiful if it had met its original requirements more cheaply.

The notion that a sudden change in requirements that must be dealt with quickly results in an uglier system seems fairly straightforward to me, and certainly not offensive.