Is Clean Architecture Overengineering?

A
Balanced rn 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.

Scalability and
Flexibility
Strict Interaction
Rules Improved
Maintainability
Multiple
Abstraction Enhanced
Layers Adaptability Over
Initial Time
Complexity
Burden

Long-Term Benefits
Overengineering
Concerns
Balancing Complexity and Long-Term Benefits in Clean
Architecture

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:

Building Independence and Clarity

Isolating system
Separation of
1 aspects based on
responsibilities. Concerns

Core rules protected

Clean
2 from external
volatility.
Business Logic
Architecture

Technical details
Technical
3 isolated from
business logic. Implementation

• 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:

Entities

• (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 Architecture
Traditional Layered (N-Tier)
MVC (as system arch)
Vertical Slice Architecture
Primary Goal
Decoupling, Testability, Maintainability
Logical Separation
UI Separation
Feature Cohesion & Isolation
Key Structure
Concentric Layers (Domain core)
Horizontal Layers
Model, View, Controller
Feature-based Vertical Slices
Dependency Flow
Strictly Inward (via DIP)
Typically Downward
Controller orchestrates
Primarily within slice
Coupling
Low between layers
Potential high BLL-DAL
Potential high Controller-Model
Low between slices, high within?
Testability
High (Core logic)
Moderate to Low (BLL)
Moderate (Model/Controller)
High (Slice logic)
Initial Effort
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate to High
Boilerplate
Potentially High (interfaces, DTOs)
Moderate
Low to Moderate
Potentially Low (less shared abs)
Best Fit
Complex, long-lived, evolving systems
Simpler CRUD apps
UI-centric applications
Feature-rich apps, microservices

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/clean-ar
5. chitecture
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/0134
494164
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-archite
10. cture
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-architecture-s
olutions-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_architecture
_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-martin/
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-shoulders-
16. of-giants/
Understand the Theory behind Clean Architecture - Scalable Backend, accessed April
16, 2025,
https://blog.scalablebackend.com/understand-the-theory-behind-clean-architecture
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-depen
19. dency-rule-for-the-3rd-and-4th-layer
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-rule-a
21. nd-naming-objects
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_ho
w_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-mart
25. in-ofd
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_there
_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-scenari
os-in-clean-architecture