The Pattern-First Trap in PHP

Patterns are useful. They give us a shared language, help teams communicate intent, and can prevent common mistakes.

The problem starts when patterns become the starting point instead of the result of understanding the problem.

I have seen this repeatedly in PHP projects: a simple feature request arrives, and before anyone defines the real constraints, the codebase gets a Repository layer, a Service layer, factories, strategy objects, and event buses. None of those are bad on their own. They are just expensive when they are added too early.

What pattern-first usually looks like

The pattern-first trap often follows the same sequence:

1. Pick an architecture style from a blog post or conference talk.
2. Apply it everywhere for consistency.
3. Build abstractions for problems you do not have yet.
4. Spend more time maintaining glue code than shipping features.

At that point, the code may look impressive, but delivery slows down and maintenance becomes harder for everyone who did not help create the abstraction.

Why this happens

There are three common drivers behind it:

1. Fear of rework. Teams try to “future-proof” from day one.
2. Cargo culting. A pattern worked elsewhere, so it gets copied without context.
3. Status architecture. Complexity is mistaken for maturity.

In reality, most systems get safer and clearer by being explicit, boring, and direct at the start.

Design from constraints, not from patterns

A more reliable flow is:

1. Define the domain behavior and invariants first.
2. List concrete constraints: scale, latency, team size, deployment model, compliance.
3. Build the simplest implementation that satisfies those constraints.
4. Introduce a pattern only where pain is repeated and measurable.

This keeps the architecture honest. A pattern should remove real friction, not satisfy a theoretical one.

A practical rule of thumb

When deciding whether to introduce a pattern, ask:

1. What concrete problem does this solve right now?
2. What complexity cost does it introduce?
3. How will we know it helped?

If you cannot answer all three in plain language, do not add it yet.

Where patterns still shine

This is not anti-pattern rhetoric. Patterns are extremely valuable when the problem shape is stable and the trade-offs are understood. For example:

1. Strategy for genuinely variable runtime behavior.
2. Adapter for unavoidable third-party integration mismatches.
3. Domain events when multiple independent workflows react to the same business fact.

The key is timing. Use patterns when the system asks for them.

Build simple, then earn complexity

Good PHP architecture is not about how many patterns you can name. It is about how clearly the code expresses domain intent, and how safely a team can evolve it under pressure.

Start with constraints, optimize for readability, and introduce abstraction only when the pain is real. That approach scales better than pattern-first systems in the long run.

This article was originally published on Sevalla.