Boring” sounds like an insult. It implies something uninspired, lazy, or lifeless. But in software engineering, “boring” is a compliment. It means predictable, clear, and maintainable. Boring code is code that doesn’t make you think. And that’s exactly the point.

The Paradox of Boring Software

Good software is boring. It fulfills its job without surprises. It’s easy to read, easy to understand, and thus easy to work with. And since we don’t live in an idealistic world: software that is easy to work with is cheap to maintain.

The best code I’ve encountered in my career doesn’t make you go “wow, that’s clever!” Instead, it makes you think “of course, that’s exactly how it should work.”

One of the finest examples of boring-done-right that I’ve encountered was the Corona Warn App. Designed by major German companies with a clear goal: enable mass monitoring of COVID cases and contact tracking while preserving the privacy of its users. When I started digging into the project, the documentation was so good that I understood the entire concept in maybe one or two hours. The architecture made 100% sense. I had that rare feeling of completeness, as if I could see the entire system at a glance, without confusion or gaps. It was a moment of excitement and joy, but it was boring at the same time.

The seemingly impossible task of tracking people’s contacts without infringing on their privacy turned out to be elegantly solvable. I genuinely believed the app could be an invaluable tool in the fight against contagious diseases. Sadly, the app’s potential wasn’t fully realized, but that moment stuck with me as a perfect example of how good software and documentation should look like. Kudos to the creators.

Boring and Clean Code Go Hand in Hand

You can read good code like a good book. Each function tells you what it does, and the flow feels natural. Reading good code causes very little WTFs per minute (as the classic comic measures code quality).

Take this example of a request handler I encountered recently.

public boolean handle(Request request, Response response, Callback callback) throws Exception {
    try {
        var user = this.authenticate(request);

        // Determine the target from the path info.
        var target = request.getHttpURI().getDecodedPath();
        if (target == null || target.isEmpty() || "/".equals(target)) {
            throw new RuntimeException("Missing arguments to handle request");
        }
        // Remove leading '/' and split by '/'
        var parts = target.substring(1).split("/");
        var thisTarget = parts[0];

        if ("jsonrpc".equals(thisTarget)) {
            this.handleJsonRpc(user, request, response);
        }
        ...

When I realize that the first 10 lines are only about validation of the path and that the local variables are not used for the actual processing of the request my natural reflex is to extract a method that takes this piece of code with high cohesion, give it a name and make the code a little bit more boring.

Here’s the refactored version:


@Override
public boolean handle(Request request, Response response, Callback callback) throws Exception {
    try {
        var user = this.authenticate(request);

        var path = request.getHttpURI().getDecodedPath();
        if (targetsJsonRpcEndpoint(path)) {
            this.handleJsonRpc(user, request, response);
        }
        ...
    }
}

private boolean targetsJsonRpcEndpoint(String path) throws RuntimeException {
    // Determine the target from the path info.
    if (path == null || path.isEmpty() || "/".equals(path)) {
        throw new RuntimeException("Missing arguments to handle request");
    }
    // Remove leading '/' and split by '/'
    var parts = path.substring(1).split("/");

    return "jsonrpc".equals(parts[0]);
}

Now the scope of variables like parts is reduced. The variable thisTarget where the developer obviously had difficulties finding a good name, is gone entirely. The method name targetsJsonRpcEndpoint tells you everything you need to know about its purpose. You can read if (targetsJsonRpcEndpoint(path)) almost as if it is prose.

For me refactorings like this are almost like the muscle memory of a pianist. I don’t think about them too much. Small refactorings like this might seem trivial, but making these small improvements habitually, whenever you touch code, compounds over time. What starts as tiny refactorings here and there gradually transforms your codebase into something genuinely easy and fun to work with. The code evolves continuously, and the tests ensure nothing breaks along the way.

What makes code truly understandable is when it’s composed like a puzzle of small, coherent pieces—each easy to grasp on its own. This principle applies at every level: individual methods, classes, modules, all the way up to deployment units. This compartmentalization, the clean seams between components that hide the complexity behind them, is what manages cognitive load. You can understand one piece without holding the entire system in your head. Interestingly, this isn’t just helpful for humans, AI tools today also work better with code that’s structured in a cognition-friendly way.

The Value of Boring

Boring software doesn’t mean uninspired or lazy. It means:

  • Predictable: Less surprising behavior
  • Readable: Anyone can understand it without a PhD in the codebase
  • Maintainable: Changes are straightforward, safer, and cheaper—less time deciphering means more time delivering value
  • Enjoyable Last but not least

Clean Code isn’t a new idea, it’s decades old. Yet the industry still treats boring, maintainable code as optional rather than essential. The next time you’re tempted to write something clever, ask yourself: can I make this boring instead?

Boring code is a gift to your future self, your teammates, and everyone who comes after you. It’s the difference between a codebase people dread touching and one they actually enjoy working with.

That’s not just good engineering, it’s exciting.