Best Software Design Principles for Successful Engineering

Though professional software engineers are by definition well-equipped to handle a variety of software projects, abiding by software design principles ultimately optimizes the development process.

Naturally, there are numerous design principles that complement the development needs of any developer who would appreciate the guidance.

But there are a few software design principles that relatively every expert developer has hard-wired into their brains.

These principles stand out because they remain dependable, time and time again.

At Trio, our senior developers apply these principles every day to deliver robust, high-performance systems for clients across industries.

For a glimpse into the most valuable software design principles driving successful software development, keep reading.

What Are Software Design Principles?

Before diving into specific examples, it helps to understand what software design principles actually are and why they matter.

Software design principles are a collection of time-tested guidelines that help developers create systems that are clean, maintainable, and easy to scale.

They provide a shared language for thinking about how to organize code, structure functionality, and manage change across the software life cycle.

In practice, these principles reduce complexity by encouraging good habits such as minimizing redundancy, simplifying logic, and separating responsibilities.

They also support teamwork by making code more readable and predictable, no matter who wrote it.

In short, design principles act as the foundation for quality software engineering. By following them, developers can build systems that evolve gracefully rather than degrade over time.

DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself)

The DRY principle seeks to reduce repetition in software programming to avoid redundancy.

It’s far too common for software engineers to have to write strikingly similar pieces of code over and over again.

Thankfully, the solution to this is by no means impractical. For example, object-oriented programming relies on classes to save bits of data into manipulable objects.

These objects can be called at any point in time and take on parameters that describe what the object works with or the extent of the object’s function.

Encapsulating code into objects depends on several other guiding principles, such as:

• Abstraction
• Pluggability
• Reusability

Abstraction refers to consolidating the complexity of a program element by hiding its internal details. 

The code that exists in an object, for instance, is hidden from the user after its creation.

While working with data structures in Python, users can edit lists via various pre-built Python objects.

To append an item, they would use:

[list name].append(x)

Or to remove an item, they’d use:

[list name].remove(x)

In these examples, append() and remove() are object calls, and x defines which list item the object should append or remove.

The Python user needs no prior understanding of the objects’ code to use these objects. They only need to name its attributes (parameters).

Naturally, this abstraction lends towards reusability and pluggability.

Objects and other program elements that implement DRY can be reused, effectively curtailing duplication, and you can plug them virtually anywhere in your program.

A modern example of DRY in practice would be Django Packages, a directory of apps and other resources built by Django contributors, and available to all Django users.

Ironically, a violation of the DRY principle is dubbed WET, or ‘waste everyone’s time.’ Likewise, AHA stands for ‘avoid hasty abstractions’, which leads to premature optimization.

In short, DRY is about working smarter, not harder, investing time in creating reusable solutions rather than rewriting them.

YAGNI (You aren’t gonna need it.)

YAGNI asserts that programmers should only add functionality when absolutely necessary and never before.

The man behind this principle, Ron Jeffries, is also a co-founder of extreme programming (XP), a software development methodology and Agile framework.

The original words of Jeffries were, “Always implement things when you actually need them, never when you just foresee that you need them.”

Without a doubt, this should be a priority in a software methodology that intends to improve software quality by encouraging frequent releases on the basis of changing customer requirements.

The end goal in such methodologies is not only to deliver fast but to deliver satisfaction.

And it is easy to fall short on both these objectives when software engineers focus too much on adding every odd and end in sight.

YAGNI borrows from the XP principle DTSTTCPW or ‘do the simplest thing that could possibly work.’

And another important principle of software programming, continuous integration, plays into YAGNI as well.

Continuous integration (CI) is a software development practice where developers regularly merge code changes into a shared repository.

In a CI environment, simplicity matters. The smaller and more focused each change is, the less risk of integration conflicts and regressions.

It goes without saying that major changes can result in disorganization down the line.

Overall, the gist of all these corresponding principles is that you save yourself the work of cleaning up a big mess when you just start simple and adjust accordingly.

Maintainability and clean code are the much-desired merits of any successful software project, meaning they generally serve best.

KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Although calling someone stupid is never a great approach, KISS still has a lot to offer.

The KISS principle reminds developers that simplicity is a strength, not a limitation.

KISS mirrors YAGNI pretty closely. The KISS principle states that programmers should keep each small piece of software as simple as possible and avoid unnecessary complexity.

In other words, clarity beats cleverness.

Implementations of this principle are far-reaching. As early as 1960, the U.S. Navy propagated the principle to emphasize that systems work best if they are simple rather than complex.

In fact, evidence traces the origins of the principle to Kelly Johnson, a lead engineer at the Lockheed Skunk Works, an aerospace technology corporation that frequently works with the U.S. military.

Other variations of KISS include ‘Keep it short and simple’ or ‘Keep it simple and straightforward.’

The message remains the same: complexity increases the likelihood of failure. The simpler the design, the easier it is to understand, maintain, and extend.

As far as both YAGNI and KISS are concerned, there are a few software development strategies you can use to ensure simplicity, like loose coupling and cohesion.

Loose coupling is software development’s answer to tight coupling when program structures are so densely entangled that changes become difficult and time-consuming.

In loose coupling, developers program software with room for modularity in return for interconnectivity. 

As a result, an application’s features and functions operate independently and don’t malfunction when another application feature or function is compromised.

Cohesion might seem like the opposite of that sentiment, but low coupling and high cohesion actually work in tandem and make for good software design.

High cohesion entails that everything in the module or class ties together and supports its central purpose. 

One software concept that illustrates both high cohesion and loose coupling is microservices.

Microservices consist of numerous services, each representing a single function or feature, that are bound together via APIs.

Services within this architecture should be highly cohesive so as to be independently functional and self-contained. Yet, the coupling between services is low.

SOLID

SOLID principles are a combination of five software design principles, wrapped up in one aesthetically pleasing acronym.

Together, they form the cornerstone of object-oriented programming (OOP) and serve as a practical guide for building modular, maintainable software systems.

Here are those principles:

1. Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)

Classes define the behavior and data of objects, so developers can instantiate or call objects later in the program using a pre-defined class.

However, SRP maintains that a class should have one and only one reason to change.

This principle may seem cryptic, but all it means is that a class should not have more than one responsibility.

In software, classes are the technical equivalent of, “You had one job.”

By isolating responsibilities, you reduce the chance that one small change will cause unintended side effects elsewhere in the system.

2. Open/Closed Principle (OCP)

OCP stresses that software entities should be open for extension but closed for modification. 

In short, this specifies that adding new functionality should occur by extending existing functions, not changing them entirely.

When it comes to changing requirements, this principle makes the software development life cycle much more efficient.

Following OCP allows teams to build upon stable, tested code instead of rewriting it, minimizing regression risk and improving agility.

3. Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)

The Liskov Substitution principle holds that an object and its sub-object must be interchangeable without disrupting the program. 

For the non-technically-savvy, this might seem like gibberish. For the technically savvy, this also might seem gibberish.

Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.

Apply this to software development, and you’ll find that giving every square object the properties of the rectangle class won’t make for the most accurate geometry.

Maintaining this relationship ensures consistency and prevents unexpected behavior when working with inheritance hierarchies.

4. Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)

The ISP is similar to the SRP in that it desires to mitigate the negative impact of frequent changes.

Except that the ISP does this by urging developers to split code into multiple, independent parts.

In particular, the principle states that many client-specific interfaces are better than one general-purpose interface.

Again, microservice vs. monolithic architecture models why this is true.

Developers favor microservices over monolithic architecture because, although the latter is general-purpose, it necessitates excessive dependencies that further complicate the program.

Smaller, purpose-built interfaces make systems easier to understand, test, and evolve, reducing ripple effects when changes occur.

5. Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)

The Dependency Inversion principle makes multiple assertions:

• High-level modules should not depend upon low-level modules. Both should depend upon abstractions. 
• Abstractions should not depend upon details. Details should depend upon abstractions. 

In this case, such a principle emphasizes the importance of abstractions to induce low coupling.

In plain English, the principle suggests reducing dependencies by disentangling modules and abstracting details where you can.

This principle decouples code components, allowing independent updates and easier testing. This is a critical trait of robust architectures.

Additional Principles to Know

While DRY, YAGNI, KISS, and SOLID cover the foundation, experienced developers tend to keep a few other principles in their mental toolkit.

These ideas don’t replace the big ones; they simply fill in the gaps, especially when codebases grow or teams expand. Each one circles back to the same goals: clarity, maintainability, and long-term stability.

Composition Over Inheritance

It’s often tempting to use inheritance because it looks neat in diagrams, but it rarely stays neat for long.

Inheritance chains can lock you into rigid structures that are hard to change without breaking something else.

Composition, on the other hand, is more flexible. You build features by combining smaller, self-contained parts instead of extending a long family tree of classes.

A lot of modern frameworks encourage this naturally.

In React, for instance, you build reusable components and piece them together, not subclass them. That approach may feel less formal at first, but it tends to survive growth and refactoring better than deep inheritance hierarchies.

Composition makes software easier to evolve and lets you swap or modify parts without rewriting everything around them. It’s not always the right answer, but in most cases, it keeps complexity where it belongs, local and predictable.

Separation of Concerns

The idea here is simple enough: each part of your program should handle one job and handle it well. Mixing too many responsibilities into a single place almost always leads to confusion later.

You can see this principle at work in the Model–View–Controller (MVC) pattern, where data, logic, and presentation each live in their own space. It’s not perfect, but it demonstrates the value of clear boundaries.

When each layer has a clear role, you can adjust one without disturbing the others.

Separation of concerns may sound academic, but it’s one of those quiet rules that makes debugging less painful and collaboration smoother, especially on larger teams.

Law of Demeter

This one sounds mysterious, but it’s mostly common sense: objects shouldn’t reach too far. The Law of Demeter says that an object should only talk to its direct neighbors, not their neighbors’ neighbors.

In practice, that means avoiding long call chains like user.profile.address.city. Every extra link in that chain makes your code more fragile. If one piece changes shape, everything upstream breaks.

By keeping interactions close and deliberate, you reduce hidden dependencies and make the code easier to reason about.

It’s not a strict rule, but more of a reminder to keep relationships shallow and explicit.

Principle of Least Astonishment

Good code should do what people expect it to do. The Principle of Least Astonishment (POLA) may sound philosophical, but it’s surprisingly practical. It applies to naming, behavior, and even user experience.

If a method is called deleteUser(), it should actually delete the user, not archive them or flip a flag somewhere. When code behaves in ways that surprise developers, bugs are almost guaranteed to follow.

POLA often comes down to empathy: thinking about how someone else, or your future self, will read and use the code. Predictable behavior makes systems easier to trust and much easier to maintain.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Applying design principles well is rarely as straightforward as it sounds. A principle that seems perfectly clear in theory can twist in practice, especially under pressure or when working in large, fast-moving teams.

One common trap is abstraction for its own sake.

It feels elegant to build reusable layers early, but in reality, that elegance can collapse under its own weight. A pattern or utility that seems clever in week one may turn into a maintenance headache by month six. You might end up designing frameworks inside frameworks, all to avoid writing the same five lines twice.

It’s usually wiser to repeat yourself once or twice, then refactor later if a clear pattern emerges.

DRY, in particular, is often misunderstood. People sometimes stretch it so far that clarity gets lost.

A single shared function buried in a utilities folder may look efficient, but if no one remembers what it does or where it lives, the cost outweighs the benefit. Reuse is valuable, but not when it hides intent.

Inheritance is another point of friction, as it’s tempting to lean on class hierarchies because they look clean on paper, yet they tend to lock you into rigid structures.

Composition, or assembling behavior from smaller pieces, usually works better. It’s easier to test, simpler to replace, and less likely to surprise the next person who reads your code.

Overengineering is the quieter cousin of over-abstraction. You see it in the “just in case” features: the unfinished analytics dashboard, the placeholder API endpoints, the empty caching layer. They’re built with good intentions, but most never pay off.

Sticking to YAGNI keeps teams honest about what actually delivers value right now.

Simplicity can go too far as well. KISS doesn’t mean flatten every idea into a one-liner. Code that’s overly clever or condensed may look neat, but it often reads like a puzzle. A few extra lines written clearly are worth far more than an unreadable trick.

And finally, it’s easy to treat these ideas as rules instead of reminders. SOLID, DRY, and YAGNI are meant to guide your thinking, not to police it. Real-world systems are messy, and sometimes trade-offs are unavoidable. That’s fine.

What matters is staying thoughtful about why you’re choosing one approach over another.

At Trio, we see these principles as living tools rather than commandments. They’re meant to adapt as your codebase and your team evolve.

Conclusion

The design principles you’ve seen here are instrumental to every programming endeavor. Make sure that these principles guide your next software project.

And if you need human resources as well, you’re in luck. Trio has the key to qualified software engineers who have your best interests at heart.

Trio excels in software knowledge and South American developer connections. Discover our exceptional Argentine, Brazilian, and Chilean developers for outsourcing excellence.

Want to learn more? Contact Trio now to get started!

FAQs