Is Clean Architecture Overengineering?

A Balanced Analysis
I. Introduction: The Clean Architecture Debate
Setting the Context: In the dynamic landscape of software development,
architectural patterns guide the structuring of applications to achieve desired
qualities. Among the prominent modern approaches is Clean Architecture, a software
design philosophy popularized by Robert C. Martin.1 Its central aim is ambitious yet
crucial: to create software systems that are inherently maintainable, scalable, testable,
and crucially, independent of external technological dependencies like frameworks,
databases, or user interfaces.2 This independence is pursued to enhance flexibility
and longevity, allowing systems to adapt gracefully over time.2

The Core Question: Despite its laudable goals, Clean Architecture frequently sparks
debate, centering on a critical question: Does the rigorous pursuit of these
architectural ideals inadvertently lead to unnecessary complexity and
"overengineering"? This concern often arises from the perception of Clean
Architecture involving multiple distinct layers, numerous abstractions (like interfaces),
and a strict set of rules governing their interaction, which can seem daunting,
particularly in the initial stages of a project.12

Report Purpose & Structure: This report aims to provide a balanced,

evidence-based analysis of this question. It will delve into the core tenets of Clean
Architecture, meticulously examine the arguments suggesting it constitutes
overengineering, and present the counterarguments highlighting its significant
benefits. Furthermore, it will explore the critical role of project context, compare Clean
Architecture with alternative patterns, and incorporate insights drawn from real-world
implementation experiences. The ultimate goal is to equip software professionals with
a nuanced understanding to inform their architectural decisions, aligning with the
fundamental objective of software architecture: minimizing the human resources
required to build and maintain systems throughout their lifecycle.5

Target Audience Relevance: The question of whether Clean Architecture is overkill

resonates deeply within the software development community. Developers, architects,
and technical leaders constantly grapple with choosing the right architectural
approach. Making an informed decision requires understanding the trade-offs
between upfront investment in structure and the long-term implications for
maintenance, testing, and adaptability. This analysis seeks to clarify these trade-offs,
providing a foundation for pragmatic architectural choices.
II. Understanding Clean Architecture: Philosophy and Structure

A. Defining the Philosophy: Separation of Concerns and Independence

At its heart, Clean Architecture is driven by the principle of Separation of Concerns.3

This means structuring the software such that different aspects of the system are
isolated from one another based on their responsibilities. Specifically, it emphasizes a
clear division between the core business logic and rules (the "policies") and the
technical implementation details (the "mechanisms") such as databases, web
frameworks, or UI technologies.1 The purpose of this separation is to protect the
essential business logic from the volatility of external factors.

This separation enables the key characteristics Clean Architecture strives for:
●​ Independence of Frameworks: The core logic should not depend on any
specific application framework (e.g., ASP.NET Core, Spring). Frameworks are
treated as tools, not constraints.2
●​ Independence of the UI: The user interface can be changed (e.g., web UI to
console UI) without affecting the underlying business rules.2
●​ Independence of the Database: The choice of data storage technology can be
altered without impacting the core application logic.2
●​ Independence of External Agencies: Business rules remain unaware of and
unaffected by external systems or services.3
Achieving this independence is not merely an academic exercise; it provides tangible
strategic advantages. It allows development teams to defer decisions about specific
technologies until later in the process, keeps options open for future changes, and
makes the core application logic more resilient to technological churn, thus promoting
adaptability and longevity.2 The core application code becomes effectively "portable".1

Clean Architecture did not emerge in a vacuum. It builds upon and integrates ideas
from earlier patterns like Hexagonal Architecture (Ports & Adapters) and Onion
Architecture. These related approaches share the fundamental goals of externalizing
tools and delivery mechanisms and ensuring that dependencies point inward, towards
the application core.8

B. The Layered Structure: Concentric Circles of Responsibility

Clean Architecture is often visualized as a series of concentric circles, representing

distinct layers of the application.1 Each layer encapsulates a different level of software.
The general principle is that as one moves inward towards the center, the software
becomes higher-level, representing core policies, while the outer layers represent
lower-level mechanisms and implementation details.1 While variations exist, a common
representation includes four primary layers:
●​ (Visual Description: Imagine a diagram with four concentric circles. The innermost
circle is labeled "Entities," the next circle out is "Use Cases," followed by
"Interface Adapters," and the outermost circle is "Frameworks & Drivers.")
1.​ Layer 1: Entities (Domain Layer): This innermost layer forms the core of the
application. It encapsulates the enterprise-wide or application-critical business
rules and data structures.8 Entities represent the fundamental concepts of the
business domain. They should embody the most general, high-level rules and be
the least likely part of the system to change due to external factors like UI or
database modifications.8 An entity might be an object with methods or simply a
collection of data structures and functions related to a core business concept.8
Crucially, this layer should have no dependencies on any outer layer.17 It is the
heart of the application's logic.16
2.​ Layer 2: Use Cases (Application Layer): Surrounding the Entities, this layer
contains application-specific business rules. It defines and implements the
specific operations (use cases) the system can perform.8 Use cases orchestrate
the flow of data, retrieving entities, directing them to apply their core business
rules, and coordinating actions to achieve a specific application goal.8 This layer
depends on the Entities layer but remains independent of frameworks, databases,
and UI.8 Changes related to specific application operations will typically affect the
code in this layer.8 A key responsibility of this layer is defining abstractions (often
interfaces) that specify the requirements for outer layers, such as data
persistence or external service interactions.1
3.​ Layer 3: Interface Adapters: This layer acts as a set of converters or translators.
Its primary role is to transform data between the format most convenient for the
inner layers (Use Cases and Entities) and the format most suitable for external
agents like databases, web frameworks, or the UI.16 This layer typically includes
components like Controllers (handling UI input), Presenters (formatting data for
the UI), Gateways (interfacing with external data sources), and Data Mappers
(transforming data structures).2 It adapts external information for the application
core and prepares core data for presentation or storage.
 4.​ Layer 4: Frameworks & Drivers (Infrastructure Layer): The outermost layer
consists of the concrete implementations of external tools and technologies. This
includes the user interface framework (e.g., React, Angular, native UI), the
database management system (e.g., PostgreSQL, MongoDB), web application
frameworks (e.g., ASP.NET Core, Express), external APIs, devices, and any other
system-level tools.2 This layer contains the "details" – the specific code that
interacts directly with the platform or external services. A core tenet of Clean
Architecture is that components in this layer should be replaceable without
necessitating changes in the inner layers.2 The Infrastructure layer implements
the interfaces defined by the Application layer (e.g., providing a concrete
database repository that fulfills the requirements of an IUserRepository interface
defined in the Application layer).16

While four layers are commonly depicted, the architecture is not strictly limited to this
number; more layers can be introduced if needed, provided the central dependency
rule is maintained.3

C. The Dependency Rule: The Cornerstone Principle

The single most critical rule governing the interaction between these layers is The
Dependency Rule.8 It states unequivocally: Source code dependencies must point
only inward, towards the higher-level policies encapsulated in the inner circles.1

The direct implication of this rule is profound: code in an inner circle cannot know
anything about code in an outer circle. This prohibition includes referencing names of
functions, classes, variables, or any other software entity declared in an outer layer.3
Data formats specific to an outer layer (especially those generated by frameworks)
should also not be used by inner layers.8 The goal is to prevent any aspect of the
outer, more volatile layers from impacting the stable inner core.8

(Visual Description: Imagine arrows representing source code dependencies

originating from the outer layers (Frameworks & Drivers, Interface Adapters) and
always pointing towards the inner layers (Use Cases, Entities). Contrast this with
arrows representing the flow of control, which might start in an outer layer (e.g., a
Controller), move inward through a Use Case, potentially interact with an Entity, and
then flow back outward, perhaps to a Presenter in the Interface Adapters layer. The
key is that the source code dependency arrows never point outward.)

How can an inner layer invoke functionality in an outer layer (like saving data to a
database) without depending on it? The mechanism enabling this is the Dependency
Inversion Principle (DIP), the 'D' in the SOLID principles.6 Instead of the inner layer
directly calling the outer layer, the inner layer defines an interface (an abstraction)
representing the needed functionality (e.g., ISaveUserData). The outer layer then
provides a concrete implementation of that interface (e.g., SqlUserDataSaver). The
inner layer depends only on the interface it defines. Through techniques like
Dependency Injection, the concrete implementation from the outer layer is provided
to the inner layer at runtime. This inverts the direction of the source code dependency
relative to the flow of control, ensuring dependencies always point inward towards
abstractions defined by the inner layers.1 This rigorous application of DIP prevents
implementation details from leaking into the core logic.1

The Dependency Rule, therefore, is not just a guideline but the critical enforcement
mechanism that makes the philosophy of Separation of Concerns and Independence
achievable within this layered structure. Without strict adherence to this rule,
facilitated by Dependency Inversion, the boundaries between layers would blur,
coupling would increase, and the core benefits of the architecture would be lost. It is
this combination of layering, the strict inward dependency flow, and the use of
Dependency Inversion that fundamentally defines Clean Architecture's structural
approach and distinguishes it from simpler layered patterns.
D. Underlying Design Principles (Briefly)

Clean Architecture is deeply rooted in established software design principles. The

SOLID principles are particularly foundational, with the Dependency Inversion
Principle (DIP) being paramount, as discussed above.6 Other SOLID principles also
play supporting roles:
●​ Single Responsibility Principle (SRP): Encourages classes and components to
have only one reason to change, promoting cohesion within layers.6
●​ Open-Closed Principle (OCP): Suggests software entities should be open for
extension but closed for modification, often achieved through abstraction,
allowing behavior changes without altering existing core code.7
●​ Interface Segregation Principle (ISP): Advises against forcing clients to depend
on interfaces they don't use, leading to more focused interfaces defined by inner
layers.7

Beyond SOLID, principles related to component cohesion and coupling further inform
the structure:
●​ Common Closure Principle (CCP): Gather classes into components that change
for the same reasons and at the same times.3 This helps organize layers
effectively.
●​ Common Reuse Principle (CRP): Components should group classes that are
reused together.3
●​ Acyclic Dependencies Principle (ADP): Forbids circular dependencies between
components.6 The Dependency Rule inherently enforces this between layers.
●​ Stable Dependencies Principle (SDP): Dependencies should flow in the
direction of stability; volatile components should depend on stable ones.6 Clean
Architecture places the most stable domain logic at the core.
●​ Stable Abstractions Principle (SAP): Components should be as abstract as
they are stable.6

The heavy reliance on these established principles underscores that Clean

Architecture is not merely a prescriptive set of layers and rules. It represents a
principled approach, leveraging these fundamental concepts to construct systems
that embody desired qualities like maintainability, testability, and independence.15 The
architecture provides a framework for applying these principles systematically across
an entire application.
III. The "Is It Overkill?" Perspective: Arguments Against Clean
Architecture
While Clean Architecture offers a compelling vision, its adoption is often met with
skepticism, primarily revolving around concerns of complexity and overhead. These
arguments form the basis of the "overengineering" critique.

A. Increased Initial Complexity and Learning Curve

A frequent criticism is that Clean Architecture introduces significant complexity,

particularly during the initial phases of a project.2 Setting up the distinct layers,
defining interfaces, configuring dependency injection containers, and establishing the
communication pathways requires a non-trivial amount of upfront effort compared to
simpler architectural styles.

Furthermore, teams unfamiliar with the core concepts – SOLID principles,

Dependency Inversion, Dependency Injection, the nuances of layering, and the strict
adherence to the Dependency Rule – face a considerable learning curve.2 Adopting
Clean Architecture often necessitates a fundamental shift in mindset away from more
traditional, coupled approaches.2 This initial hurdle can slow down development
velocity at the start and may lead to "analysis paralysis" as teams grapple with the
design implications before writing substantial code.

B. Boilerplate Code and Abstraction Overhead

Related to complexity is the concern about the volume of "boilerplate" code

seemingly required by Clean Architecture. Developers often point to the proliferation
of interfaces, Data Transfer Objects (DTOs), mappers, and dependency injection
setup code as adding overhead without delivering immediate functional value.12 The
pattern can lead to a large number of small files and classes distributed across
different projects or folders, which some find cumbersome to navigate and manage.12

There is also the risk of creating "abstraction for abstraction's sake".13 Teams might
introduce layers, interfaces, and indirections simply to adhere to the pattern, even
when the current complexity or anticipated change doesn't warrant it. This can result
in what some critics call "architecture without purpose" 12 or "speculative generality"
13
, where the code becomes overly abstract and difficult to follow due to unnecessary
layers of indirection.22 Much of this perceived boilerplate arises directly from the need
to explicitly define the boundaries and contracts (interfaces, DTOs) necessary to
enforce the Dependency Rule and maintain decoupling between layers.1 While this
explicitness aids decoupling, it contrasts sharply with simpler architectures where
components might interact more directly, reducing this specific type of boundary
code but simultaneously increasing coupling.

C. Potential Unsuitability for Small or Simple Projects

A significant part of the "overengineering" debate centers on context. For small

applications, prototypes, or projects with a short expected lifespan and limited
complexity, the architectural overhead imposed by Clean Architecture may
significantly outweigh its long-term benefits.12 In such scenarios, the effort spent on
meticulous layering and abstraction might be better invested in delivering core
functionality quickly.

Simpler architectural patterns, such as a basic Model-View-Controller (MVC) structure

or even a Transaction Script approach for very simple operations 22, can be more
pragmatic and efficient choices when long-term maintainability, extensive testability,
and independence from external factors are not primary concerns.12 Applying the full
rigor of Clean Architecture to a simple CRUD application, for example, is often cited as
a case of unnecessary complexity.12 The perception of overengineering is strongly tied
to the cost (in time, effort, and code complexity) of implementing the necessary
mechanisms (layers, interfaces, DI) required by the Dependency Rule, especially when
the long-term benefits are not immediately apparent or deemed essential for the
specific project context.2

D. Risk of Misapplication and Dogmatism

Clean Architecture, if misunderstood or applied too rigidly, can paradoxically lead to

systems that are more complex and harder to maintain than intended.12 Developers
might create excessive abstractions, leading to convoluted call chains ("helper to a
helper that calls a helper" 22) or implement layers without a clear purpose, obscuring
the system's intent.12

Some environments foster a dogmatic adherence to the pattern, applying its rules
universally without critical evaluation of whether each boundary or abstraction
provides genuine value in the given context.12 This can lead to frustration and
inefficiency, giving the architecture itself a bad reputation.12 It's crucial to remember
that architectural boundaries, while powerful, can be expensive to implement fully and
should be introduced thoughtfully where needed, rather than applied
indiscriminately.24 The prevalence of misapplication suggests either that the principles
are more challenging to apply correctly in practice than they appear in theory, or that
the allure of the promised benefits leads teams to adopt the architecture in contexts
where it's inappropriate, thus creating negative experiences attributed back to the
pattern itself.2

IV. Why Choose Clean Architecture? The Benefits and

Counterarguments
Despite the criticisms regarding complexity, Clean Architecture is chosen by many
teams for the significant advantages it offers, particularly for systems expected to
grow and evolve over time.

A. Enhanced Testability

One of the most frequently cited benefits is significantly improved testability.2 The
strict separation of concerns, enforced by the Dependency Rule and enabled by
Dependency Inversion, allows the core business logic residing in the Entities and Use
Cases layers to be tested in isolation. These unit tests can run without needing the UI,
database, web server, or any external frameworks.8 Because dependencies on outer
layers are represented by interfaces, they can easily be replaced with mock objects or
stubs during testing.9 This allows for fast, reliable verification of the application's most
critical logic. This high degree of testability is not an accidental side effect but a
direct, designed-in outcome of the architectural constraints imposed by the
Dependency Rule and DIP. This contrasts sharply with architectures where business
logic is tightly interwoven with infrastructure or UI code, making unit testing difficult or
impossible, often forcing reliance on slower, more brittle integration tests.

B. Improved Maintainability and Long-Term Health

Clean Architecture aims to foster long-term maintainability.4 The clear boundaries

between layers and the principle of reduced coupling make the system easier for
developers to understand, navigate, and modify over time.1 Changes made within one
layer are less likely to have unintended consequences or ripple effects in other,
unrelated layers.10 This isolation simplifies debugging and reduces the risk associated
with introducing new features or fixing bugs.

This directly supports the overarching goal of minimizing the human resources
required to maintain the system throughout its lifecycle.5 It challenges the pervasive
myth that sacrificing architectural quality leads to short-term speed ("go fast now,
clean later"). Proponents argue that well-structured code, as promoted by Clean
Architecture, actually enables sustained development velocity, as less time is spent
fighting complexity and unintended side effects.3 Quality is viewed as an enabler of
speed, not an impediment.3

C. Increased Scalability and Adaptability

The inherent modularity of Clean Architecture facilitates scalability and adaptability.

Different layers or components can potentially be scaled independently based on
performance needs. More importantly, the decoupling achieved through dependency
inversion provides significant flexibility.2 It becomes technically feasible to swap out
implementation details – changing the database technology, replacing a web
framework, adopting a new UI paradigm – without requiring extensive rewrites of the
core business logic.2 This ability to adapt to changing technical landscapes or evolving
requirements is a key strategic advantage, effectively keeping technological options
open for the future.6

D. Independence from External Concerns (Frameworks, UI, DB)

This core objective, achieved through rigorous separation and the Dependency Rule,
offers profound strategic benefits.2 It allows teams to defer decisions about specific
frameworks, databases, or other infrastructure components until they are truly
needed, avoiding premature commitment.6 This independence future-proofs the
application to some extent, making it less vulnerable to the obsolescence or
limitations of any particular technology.11 The application's core logic remains pure
and portable.1 While the practicalities of swapping major components like databases
can still be complex 9, the fundamental value lies in preventing the core business rules
from becoming entangled with or constrained by the specifics of external tools. This
ensures the domain model remains focused purely on the business problem, leading
to better modeling and resilience.

E. Countering the "Boilerplate" Argument

While acknowledging the existence of code for interfaces, DTOs, and mappings,
proponents argue that this is not mere "boilerplate" but rather necessary code for
establishing explicit contracts and boundaries between components. In complex
systems, this explicitness pays dividends by reducing implicit coupling, improving
clarity, and enforcing separation.25 The effort invested in defining these boundaries
upfront is seen as a trade-off for enhanced long-term maintainability and testability.
Furthermore, modern development tools, code generation techniques, and framework
support for dependency injection can help mitigate some of the manual effort
involved in creating and managing these architectural elements.

Ultimately, the benefits offered by Clean Architecture – testability, maintainability,

adaptability, and independence – represent significant long-term strategic
advantages. These stand in contrast to the short-term tactical cost of increased initial
complexity. The value proposition, therefore, heavily depends on the anticipated
lifespan, complexity, and rate of evolution of the software system being built.
V. It Depends: The Crucial Role of Context
The debate over whether Clean Architecture constitutes overengineering cannot be
resolved without considering the context in which it is applied. Its suitability is not
absolute but relative to the specific characteristics of the project, the team, and the
problem domain.

A. Project Size and Complexity

The benefits of Clean Architecture, particularly its emphasis on strict separation,

modularity, and testability, become increasingly valuable as the size and complexity of
the software system grow.26 For large-scale applications with intricate business logic,
the structure imposed by Clean Architecture helps manage cognitive load by breaking
the system into understandable, isolated parts.1 The explicit boundaries prevent
uncontrolled dependencies and make reasoning about the system easier. Conversely,
for very small, simple projects (e.g., microservices with a single responsibility, simple
CRUD applications, prototypes), the overhead of implementing multiple layers,
interfaces, and dependency management can genuinely outweigh the benefits,
making simpler approaches more appropriate.12

B. Team Size, Experience, and Discipline

Team characteristics also play a crucial role. Larger development teams often benefit
more from the explicit contracts and boundaries defined in Clean Architecture, as
these help coordinate work and prevent developers from inadvertently creating tight
coupling between different parts of the system. However, the team's experience level
is critical.2 Implementing Clean Architecture effectively requires a solid understanding
of SOLID principles, dependency injection, interface-based design, and testing
strategies. An inexperienced team may struggle with these concepts, potentially
misapplying the patterns and introducing accidental complexity, thereby negating the
intended benefits.12 Furthermore, maintaining the integrity of the architecture over
time requires ongoing discipline from the entire team to respect the layer boundaries
and the Dependency Rule.5 The perceived "cost" of Clean Architecture is therefore
not fixed; it is significantly influenced by the team's capability. A skilled team will find
implementation less burdensome than a team learning these patterns concurrently.

C. Expected Lifespan and Rate of Change

The anticipated longevity and volatility of the application are key factors. Clean
Architecture is fundamentally designed for systems that are expected to live for a long
time and undergo significant evolution and maintenance.22 Its strengths in
maintainability, adaptability, and testability provide the most value in scenarios where
requirements change frequently, technologies need updating, or the codebase must
remain understandable and modifiable for years. For short-lived applications,
proof-of-concepts, or systems with extremely stable requirements, the upfront
investment in building such a robust architectural foundation may not yield a sufficient
return.

D. Domain Requirements and Stability

The nature of the business domain itself should influence architectural choices. A
complex, core business domain with evolving rules likely justifies the effort of isolating
this logic in the inner layers of a Clean Architecture structure, protecting it from
external churn. This aligns with the "Screaming Architecture" concept, where the
top-level structure of the project reflects the domain it represents.16 Simpler, more
stable domains might not require such rigorous isolation. The Stable Dependencies
Principle suggests depending on the direction of stability 6; Clean Architecture
facilitates this by placing the stable domain core inward and having more volatile
infrastructure components depend on it.

In essence, there is no universally "best" architecture. Clean Architecture represents a

set of trade-offs, optimizing for testability, maintainability, and independence, often at
the cost of increased initial complexity. Its suitability hinges on whether the problems
it solves align with the challenges and goals of the specific project context.24 Applying
it outside of contexts where its strengths are needed can understandably lead to
perceptions of overengineering. The decision to adopt Clean Architecture can be
viewed as a risk management strategy: investing upfront effort and complexity to
mitigate the future risks associated with system maintenance, evolution, and
technological dependency. The value of this investment depends directly on the
perceived likelihood and potential impact of those future risks within the specific
project context.
VI. Clean Architecture vs. Alternatives: A Comparative Glance
Understanding Clean Architecture also involves comparing it to other common
architectural patterns to appreciate its specific trade-offs.

A. Traditional Layered Architecture (N-Tier)

●​ Description: Perhaps the most common architectural style, N-Tier typically
involves distinct layers like Presentation (UI), Business Logic Layer (BLL), and Data
Access Layer (DAL). Dependencies usually flow downwards: Presentation calls
BLL, which calls DAL.
●​ Comparison: N-Tier is often simpler to set up initially and may involve less explicit
abstraction (fewer interfaces, DTOs). However, a key difference lies in
dependency management. In traditional N-Tier, the BLL often develops direct
dependencies on specific DAL implementations or data structures, coupling the
business logic to data access details. The Dependency Rule of Clean
Architecture, enforcing inward dependencies via DIP, is typically absent or less
strict. This can lead to transitive dependencies (UI indirectly depending on DAL
specifics) and makes unit testing the BLL in isolation more difficult compared to
the highly testable core layers of Clean Architecture. Clean Architecture can be
seen as a refinement of layered approaches, specifically addressing coupling and
testability limitations by rigorously enforcing the Dependency Rule via DIP.6

B. Model-View-Controller (MVC)
●​ Description: MVC is primarily a pattern for organizing code related to user
interfaces. It separates responsibilities into the Model (data and business logic),
the View (user interface presentation), and the Controller (handling user input
and orchestrating interactions).
●​ Comparison: While MVC effectively separates UI concerns, it doesn't inherently
prescribe a structure for the entire application's backend logic or infrastructure
interaction in the way Clean Architecture does. Clean Architecture addresses the
system's overall structure, aiming for independence from UI, database, and
frameworks. Often, an MVC or similar UI pattern (like MVVM, MVP) is implemented
within the outer layers (Interface Adapters, Frameworks & Drivers) of a Clean
Architecture system.16 For example, Controllers might reside in the Interface
Adapters layer, interacting with Use Cases in the layer below. Using MVC alone as
the primary system architecture typically doesn't enforce the strict layering or
dependency rules found in Clean Architecture, potentially leading to business
logic becoming coupled with framework concerns or data access details within
the Model or Controller.
C. Vertical Slice Architecture
●​ Description: This approach organizes code differently, structuring it around
features or "vertical slices" rather than technical layers ("horizontal slices").18
Each vertical slice encapsulates all the logic needed for a specific feature,
potentially including its own specific command/query handlers, data access code,
and even UI components. The goal is high cohesion within a slice and low
coupling between slices.
●​ Comparison: Vertical Slice Architecture can lead to less shared code and
abstraction across different features compared to Clean Architecture's emphasis
on common horizontal layers (especially the core Domain and Application layers).
This might reduce boilerplate for certain types of applications. It optimizes for
feature isolation and potentially faster development of individual features. Clean
Architecture, by contrast, emphasizes the isolation and reuse of core domain
logic across multiple use cases/features. The trade-offs differ: Vertical Slice
minimizes coupling between features but might have tighter coupling or
duplication within a slice; Clean Architecture minimizes coupling between layers
but might require more cross-cutting abstractions managed within those layers.
Some argue that Vertical Slice aligns well with the intent of Clean Architecture
(managing dependencies effectively) and can be a pragmatic alternative,
especially in microservices or applications with many distinct features.22 It offers a
fundamentally different approach to modularity (by feature vs. by layer).18

D. Key Trade-offs Summarized:

Clean Architecture prioritizes deep decoupling between technical layers, high

testability of core logic, and long-term maintainability, accepting higher initial
complexity and potential boilerplate as the cost. Traditional Layered architecture
offers simplicity but risks tighter coupling and reduced testability. MVC excels at UI
separation but provides less guidance for overall system structure. Vertical Slice
Architecture optimizes for feature isolation and potentially reduced cross-feature
abstraction, offering a different modularity strategy. The choice depends on which set
of trade-offs best aligns with the project's priorities.

Table: Architectural Pattern Comparison

Feature Clean Traditional MVC (as Vertical Slice

Architecture Layered system arch) Architecture
(N-Tier)
Primary Goal Decoupling, Logical UI Separation Feature
Testability, Separation Cohesion &
Maintainability Isolation

Key Structure Concentric Horizontal Model, View, Feature-based

Layers (Domain Layers Controller Vertical Slices
core)

Dependency Strictly Inward Typically Controller Primarily within

Flow (via DIP) Downward orchestrates slice

Coupling Low between Potential high Potential high Low between

layers BLL-DAL Controller-Mode slices, high
l within?

Testability High (Core Moderate to Moderate High (Slice

logic) Low (BLL) (Model/Controll logic)
er)

Initial Effort High Moderate Moderate Moderate to

High

Boilerplate Potentially High Moderate Low to Potentially Low

(interfaces, Moderate (less shared
DTOs) abs)

Best Fit Complex, Simpler CRUD UI-centric Feature-rich

long-lived, apps applications apps,
evolving microservices
systems
VII. Insights from the Trenches: Real-World Implementation
Theoretical discussions of architecture must be grounded in the practical realities of
software development. Experiences from teams implementing Clean Architecture
reveal both successes and common pitfalls.

A. Documented Experiences (Successes and Challenges)

While specific case studies are diverse, common themes emerge. Success stories
often highlight the realization of promised benefits: improved ability to test core logic
independently, easier long-term maintenance due to clear boundaries, and the
flexibility to adapt parts of the system without widespread disruption.

However, challenges are equally prevalent. Maintaining the architectural discipline

required, especially in large teams or over long periods, proves difficult.5 There's a
recurring tendency towards over-abstraction, where layers and interfaces are added
unnecessarily, making the codebase harder to navigate and understand.12 Integrating
external dependencies can sometimes remain complex despite the architectural
separation; for instance, changing a fundamental aspect like password hashing
requires careful migration strategies that go beyond simple interface swapping.9
Organizational factors, such as forcing adoption without adequate training or buy-in,
can also lead to friction and failed implementations.12 This gap between the
theoretical purity and the often messy realities of implementation underscores that
real-world constraints, legacy code, team dynamics, and technology specifics
significantly influence the outcome.

B. The Importance of Pragmatism vs. Dogmatic Application

A key takeaway from real-world experience is the critical role of pragmatism.12

Successful adoption rarely involves blindly adhering to every rule or implementing the
four-layer structure rigidly in all circumstances. Instead, effective teams focus on
understanding the underlying principles – Separation of Concerns, Dependency
Inversion, designing for testability – and applying them judiciously where they provide
the most value.12

This might mean deciding that not every boundary requires full interface-based
decoupling. If two components are highly cohesive and always change together
(aligned with the Common Closure Principle 3), introducing an interface between them
might be unnecessary overhead. Patterns like the "Humble Object" 16 can also be
employed pragmatically to isolate complex or hard-to-test interactions (like UI or I/O)
without necessarily imposing the full Clean Architecture layering scheme everywhere.
Success appears correlated with using the architecture as a toolbox of principles and
patterns, applied thoughtfully to manage complexity where it exists, rather than as a
dogmatic blueprint.

C. Evolving the Architecture

Software architecture is not a one-time decision but an ongoing process.6 Systems

evolve, requirements change, and understanding deepens. Clean Architecture
provides a structure designed to facilitate this evolution by isolating components.
However, it doesn't eliminate the need for architectural decisions. Teams must still
consciously decide when and how to introduce or refine boundaries, refactor
components, and adapt the structure as the system grows.24 The architecture itself
requires maintenance and vigilance to preserve its integrity and effectiveness over
time. This highlights that the "cost" of Clean Architecture includes not only the initial
development effort but also the ongoing discipline required to maintain its principles
as the system evolves. It's a journey, not a static destination.13
VIII. Conclusion: A Balanced Verdict on Overengineering
The question of whether Clean Architecture represents overengineering is
multifaceted, lacking a simple yes or no answer. The analysis reveals a core tension:
the architecture offers substantial, demonstrable benefits in terms of testability,
maintainability, adaptability, and independence, all grounded in well-established
design principles. However, achieving these benefits comes at the cost of increased
initial complexity, a steeper learning curve, and the potential for significant boilerplate
code if not implemented pragmatically.

Is it Over Engineering? It Depends.

Clean Architecture is not inherently overengineered. It is a sophisticated tool designed

to address the significant challenges of managing complexity in large, long-lived, and
evolving software systems. When applied within this intended context, its structures
and constraints are often necessary and justified.

However, Clean Architecture can absolutely be over engineering if:

1.​ Applied Dogmatically: Implemented rigidly without considering whether the
complexity of each layer or abstraction provides commensurate value.
2.​ Contextually Inappropriate: Used for small, simple, short-lived projects where
its long-term benefits are unlikely to be realized and simpler solutions would
suffice.
3.​ Poorly Understood: Implemented by teams lacking the necessary skills or
discipline, leading to accidental complexity that hinders rather than helps.

The label "overengineering" is ultimately subjective and highly dependent on project

context.24 What constitutes essential structure for managing the complexity of one
system might be entirely unnecessary overhead for another. Clean Architecture sits
further along the complexity/benefit spectrum than many alternatives, making it more
susceptible to this critique when its powerful features are not genuinely required by
the problem at hand.

Emphasizing Context-Driven Decisions

The most crucial takeaway is the need for context-driven architectural

decision-making. There is no one-size-fits-all architecture. Teams must carefully
evaluate the trade-offs, weighing the upfront investment and complexity of Clean
Architecture against its potential long-term benefits based on the specific project's
size, complexity, expected lifespan, rate of change, domain requirements, and team
capabilities.24

Final Recommendations for Practitioners

For teams considering or using Clean Architecture:

1.​ Focus on Principles: Prioritize understanding the fundamental principles (SOLID,
component cohesion/coupling, the Dependency Rule and its purpose) over rigidly
replicating a specific four-layer diagram.
2.​ Be Pragmatic: Apply the patterns judiciously. Consider starting with a simpler
structure and introducing stricter boundaries, interfaces, and layers
incrementally, only where complexity, testability requirements, or anticipated
volatility genuinely justify the cost.24 Recognize when a boundary is truly needed.
3.​ Invest in Skills: Ensure the team has a solid grasp of the necessary design
patterns, principles (especially SOLID and DIP), and testing techniques.
Continuous learning and shared understanding are vital.
4.​ Evaluate Continuously: Regularly assess whether the chosen level of
architectural complexity remains appropriate for the project's evolving needs and
constraints. Be prepared to adapt the architecture as the system matures.

In conclusion, Clean Architecture is a powerful, principled approach for building

robust, maintainable, and adaptable software. It is not a silver bullet, and its
successful application demands careful consideration of context, a pragmatic
mindset, and a disciplined team. When applied appropriately, it is a valuable tool for
managing complexity; when misapplied, it risks becoming the very overengineering it
seeks to prevent. The value may often be best realized not by imposing the full
structure initially, but by understanding its principles and progressively applying its
patterns as the system grows and warrants the investment in decoupling and
structure.

Works cited

1.​ Understanding clean architectures - DEV Community, accessed April 16, 2025,
https://dev.to/xoubaman/understanding-clean-architectures-33j0
2.​ Clean Architecture: Unveiling the Layers | Geeks - Vocal Media, accessed April 16,
2025, https://vocal.media/geeks/clean-architecture-unveiling-the-layers
3.​ Dive to Clean Architecture | Vivasoft Ltd., accessed April 16, 2025,
https://vivasoftltd.com/dive-to-clean-architecture/
4.​ Everything You Need to Know About Clean Architecture | Bitloops Docs,
accessed April 16, 2025,
https://bitloops.com/docs/bitloops-language/learning/software-architecture/clea
n-architecture
5.​ Clean Architecture: A Craftsman's Guide to Software Structure and Design
(Robert C. Martin Series) - Amazon.com, accessed April 16, 2025,
https://www.amazon.com/Clean-Architecture-Craftsmans-Software-Structure/dp
/0134494164
6.​ Summary of book "Clean Architecture" by Robert C. Martin - GitHub Gist,
accessed April 16, 2025,
https://gist.github.com/ygrenzinger/14812a56b9221c9feca0b3621518635b
7.​ Clean Architecture — Everything You Need to Know - CodiLime, accessed April
16, 2025, https://codilime.com/blog/clean-architecture/
8.​ Clean Architecture by Uncle Bob - The Clean Code Blog, accessed April 16, 2025,
https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2012/08/13/the-clean-architecture.html
9.​ Building Your First Use Case With Clean Architecture - Milan Jovanović, accessed
April 16, 2025,
https://www.milanjovanovic.tech/blog/building-your-first-use-case-with-clean-ar
chitecture
10.​Complete Guide to Clean Architecture | GeeksforGeeks, accessed April 16, 2025,
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/complete-guide-to-clean-architecture/
11.​ Implementing clean architecture solutions: A practical example - Red Hat
Developer, accessed April 16, 2025,
https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2023/08/08/implementing-clean-architect
ure-solutions-practical-example
12.​Why does Clean Architecture have such a bad name? : r/csharp - Reddit,
accessed April 16, 2025,
https://www.reddit.com/r/csharp/comments/16mr583/why_does_clean_architectu
re_have_such_a_bad_name/
13.​Thougts on Clean Architecture from Robert C. Martin - Jakob Breu, accessed
April 16, 2025,
https://jakobbr.eu/2020/11/15/thougts-on-clean-architecture-from-robert-c-mart
in/
14.​Clean Architecture: A Craftsman's Guide to Software Structure and Design |
George Aristy, accessed April 16, 2025,
https://georgearisty.dev/posts/clean-architecture/
15.​Clean Architecture: Standing on the shoulders of giants - @hgraca, accessed
April 16, 2025,
https://herbertograca.com/2017/09/28/clean-architecture-standing-on-the-shoul
ders-of-giants/
16.​Understand the Theory behind Clean Architecture - Scalable Backend, accessed
April 16, 2025,
https://blog.scalablebackend.com/understand-the-theory-behind-clean-architec
ture
17.​Rules to Better Clean Architecture - SSW - Enterprise Software Development,
accessed April 16, 2025,
https://www.ssw.com.au/rules/rules-to-better-clean-architecture/
18.​The Clean Architecture and the dependency rule for the 3rd and 4th layer - Stack
Overflow, accessed April 16, 2025,
 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75799400/the-clean-architecture-and-the-
dependency-rule-for-the-3rd-and-4th-layer
19.​Understand Clean Architecture in 7 Minutes - YouTube, accessed April 16, 2025,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLSE6tX71Y
20.​Clean architecture dependency rule and naming objects - Stack Overflow,
accessed April 16, 2025,
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/73268126/clean-architecture-dependency-r
ule-and-naming-objects
21.​Clean Architecture with ASP.NET Core | Blog, accessed April 16, 2025,
https://ardalis.com/clean-architecture-asp-net-core/
22.​Clean architecture book, how many of you have read it? : r/dotnet - Reddit,
accessed April 16, 2025,
https://www.reddit.com/r/dotnet/comments/1bzw4vw/clean_architecture_book_h
ow_many_of_you_have_read/
23.​ASP.NET Core - Clean Architecture - Full Course - YouTube, accessed April 16,
2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGa7SLk1-0Q
24.​Why I can't recommend Clean Architecture by Robert C Martin - DEV Community,
accessed April 16, 2025,
https://dev.to/bosepchuk/why-i-cant-recommend-clean-architecture-by-robert-
c-martin-ofd
25.​In Clean Architecture, is there a way to register Infrastructure DI without
referencing the project from the Presentation layer? : r/dotnet - Reddit, accessed
April 16, 2025,
https://www.reddit.com/r/dotnet/comments/1c3jm2w/in_clean_architecture_is_the
re_a_way_to_register/
26.​Advanced Scenarios in Clean Architecture - Software Engineering Stack
Exchange, accessed April 16, 2025,
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/455441/advanced-sce
narios-in-clean-architecture